I  t  -  »*  ryj  Irf-I 

‘./VT'.O  ^v-v  W>  .fv  ••  .hrtj-i.*  ,  '  J  •  '"■•-*» rw •  .4  >.-;- 

v-»i.i*ib  «r»n  Jwr-j.i,*  ,•  .^u  m  >>•*•#•.  ‘  ''■vnni'*'!-'  '  •  - 

t  S  \ ‘  J*. :  ’  ■  '  -•  ■  "'***-;  "  ' 


nvw~-.,  />/l#,.,v.^hi  -ovTie  *••  .  .,._,, 

t'j! i  au'rj: W*'1  '  '  «>  w-'w  >  ■  -  ..>4.4  «  „V 

*  \y  t  -  .**  "■*'  '  '0£Se£2t2f*f<*''*w>''J  -^nwwtjvvf** .»  . 

i'  /*>>'%#•%»%«  -y»»v  sar-^ >*>-■»»»'•  .4  »rfc#  v«  »««  .  *-  >,4.^  -,-  ,  .  ,  , 


ar$ 

.  -  »  „ 

V/-V/V  I  VUtfx»- 


•■»  '*m>v  -Aye  ■  > 

#i  VW  Kfv 

SSEE SrSbr  -VtSSRSk ;;:,  r 

tf  -  *  »  -i  lr''  s#'v  /  r. 

*  M *-*  .-**♦•»>■« rwr'*-** v,  r  ,  ./**  .  ,  ;. 

-  '•*  >r--*- c tt^vrv  \r  -u  r,, 

*wrwr*!n*  ^vy  *»wvmw»»i  ■--  '■>-»♦ 

=H* ^bsoSSSK* HS '. X232XXX' r:  7  -  r:^r  ' 

rd^3T£.SS:  ~S~  •  •ww  . •  •' 

WTflfT*T*rT**  ^  ■  •-  •  ».  .  -  -  •  ✓  „  «  rZ 

-  ~r *# **■*% -  '-« <-f  tW#VM  i»w k» w  u > 1  v<  /uit^L>  . -- i  .  ..  —  .  .  .  ..  ...  .  . 

^»»w» 

’  f 

sfer- 


m 

-'•  *  /  -..  -  .4 

rv  IK***  *-~~w 

Vv  1 

SSffiisayft.rs  ir^  *  *  ->  vw 
TCsa^ar.raa*;:.- , :  :v,u 
*55W3?C;“JK  :;2'i  ;:r, r ;-. 

w-  ^  .4  ifwui/)  iv-  ^KV  #  .  >  . 

r NfV'V’^piw.^ v  >*•  w v**f  *-» ^  w.v >  ... 

-A*#  - ;  ^»yyJ|tih»o  « 

[  #  y>4||!/V'SO_n>  +*P\J  ■#>"■»  4  W-  4  -✓  .• 

•■W^/-^».  rfU«/V*JvV  '  t '  •  * 

’  irfwwy  •  /%-*:  r,si*>4'  9‘i  ■.  ,,  _,  ,  _ 

■  --■  'XwXKSKSiasscrjr^ic;  j-.  , ...  abb 

■•  •  • 

51  ;H; 

,»',‘  -•  •■■•u.  .'  v,/  •  .,,;  ^  .  CClltS  f  '  *  •  *  -4^ .  , 

«  ;  ,TC  ZYY.VJ  ^  '•  ■  m  •^•■- 

Tf'^  *'V  I*,r,  '^Jww 

■•'  •■•--' » • !«  .  ♦  . 

rSWPJSJv ; ^Rstsscfej  *;  i 

BiSSsssaSsSSBaSsi^*''  •  •  ■  -  . .  ■ 

^■'  fW»i*.'«#v»wJ  ^  *r  -» >^v*  ..  .. 


w  ^  vr  rinvvMMmnnRBy^rr'4  v  •  ,_  ~  .  .  - ^ 

r  1  ?\S~  J  "*  ^Y'  *'+*v  n '  •*  **  •'*■■**-■*■  •  1  •  .  -  ■"‘,  « 

,1-v  ^  ,r«.i  ^  *rv.*y*  •*  <  v..  .'  ;  ■f."  •  v  >  - 

v^v*> m<  ..  j-fcivi  „  ..  .  ",  .  :'  2?  1  j- -r  .  ,, 

'v&yt  Wv<  ^.1  * 41. .  4  fj.  »t’  1  *  '  *  *  ~  "f  ■>  .  r*»* .  <■■>'' 


-r  ’'••-♦ 


"W- 


'  •*  *  -  ■■■  »r  »  W-4  +  *4t-S,4-  .  »  t^v  . 

. Xi^stf%52scecsccr '. • 
K ■  SSi  • . 1 . 355US^£  V “.t;.'/3f;;;; : 

MX, .4  /.#..WUV  *  *  ivt  ^  "  J  •'  '  •*'  •  »  '  ^  •  '  .  •  ; 


BTrr  •■  *■»•''*  w  p*  vf  w  fVL^ , 


■/;%'/'  ■  ii '. 

« '  :-4/  •  r;..' 

i-w.j  Av^ijy'»>'-y^n^w  ,u,  ,  J-v.j 

r  y  *  * '  *irW  H  v*  -' •» v/  ’Vw ,  / .  <  /  ,  .  m 

yf^-V  rf-.v  y  V  »u  u*  ^  ^  ..- 

.rW'.r/-ji  .viv  ..  .  . 


^ PPWPWWiBW^Biil _ 

--irr  raBriii  nnn TS* v  *^““  -***  « •:<*v...... . ..  ...  .  .  .  ,;■ 

^  •  -.-4  4 v.:  . ;■ ,  ^7t;'.' 


tr* 


v  '  ^U> 


K/  *i'*,--JM'  *■%  " 

■  *  <  i 

V  f  u  rf-v 

»r>#  4 

•WytJWT 

•n-^  -  ■■< 


xefe;.  -..-  ■, v.-.i 

-'. . .  ••-  ■  •.,  .  .  .-.  •.': 


^*W  yvvwv 

t/'^r  ♦v’Wvvf') 

VV’Uv  4  ' ■mJ- 

"  VVUsf^tf.  ■  t  .  5^ 

;gyjg358^r.-- 


VtJ 


.r- . 

•w,  -a 

i^w  :/ .^-v*  ++*\*u,  *•'■*  w  *•■''''''  r  •4  '  #  J  »  - 

w'-*  H  .4-f  .»  ..  1J...J  M  ^  '  L  )L  ^  '*»>#  .#■  a  .»  /  '•»«  *  W  / -#  r  /  ^  ,^s 

7.  'jVw  '  1C  wSfi*'®  ■***  "?*f  ^•o-M  -TM".  • 

J  .#*r^v4  ,4,,  ^  ,  1<V,  -*j 

"j  -•■  «k* — «,!,  ...XX13  z:l'.:: 


.-'•4 1. 


f  'C' '  v*  V'*  -*  »*»«>-»»•  -  .#  ^  wF^;:  *  V  J  ■  '  4  #  »~aT  1  : 

'*  -  *v* ^ w Cetj5}%8x& L #  "J'  ‘  *■')*•***' 

v,./-»w\. ,'^.4i»vr.)v  -rvJSIRJL .., Jl  .fyyyy^ •  ^ •  •  ■*>  •■ 

; Jr#.*  T' f ••  ■'  •  "  '■  * 

^  m  w  ^  v  w .  w  .^4 ,-  4 .,  j ,.  JCC  X.  r  J  OuSti  *  * # '  ^':  *  **  f  ' 


« * 


/  .  «U  -  . 

•*W '•#■  -  •'■>  *  /•*»>♦-*-•  *-\.rv-  4 

Z”  "  *'•’  '*"*■  -‘  ••«•'  '**\*y*U  4  -..  ..  .  '  •  rW-  n|H  | 

,w‘: ' ■%♦*#«# -.4 v.  *:}-,*-..  f .XKvet- ■*'■***'* ■  ^^,-....4 -.•»..%»  j  .. 

rZ£f  ^.^r:  * S.'S?5 Sv;^^fW" '  ; d£t .•,'•.  •  rr.-,- 

WifMK'VV’ 4#^  .  >...  .4,  ,  ,  . 

. .  ■*•.►  >  Kvw*,  v-  .,  v  ^ 7-f, CV: , 

>k4  »Kri  -v  w%<  f  ,  ,  ,  ,  ‘ 

.  h.iH-.r\  ,  ,  ,  •  ,  , 

•  ■■  '  •  < 


fc4J4*4Vx,j4.„,^M.„C,  .„. rt.yyvK.  JT  '  ^5*'  “V  ■*  •  44  ..  4  •»....<  .  .  .,.  ,  .4  . 

l'4»WU'4*vi.|^i  .,-*4.v  ,•  i- ...  fr'V!'‘  V  ^,/.>  .  .  Ktutym, 

V  yy^-v>«yS4WV  4-  4  V.4U  14..  ,  „ 

•4  >♦  4  .. -  »v»-/  J  ,/v, ,»-v 

■*#krv^v  '+Vb‘>pH?  x-  v*  *•>  -  .4-  /"M  W\;v 

if '.rt  J  ’i  J  «  l  .  1.  ..4  r  h  4V^-|  ... 


■  '  -  »4  -»-»4  V  ■  •  I  4a<VV  ’ 

'w^ywijyvv^X^vr.i'  wt/V'V*<\4'.  ••^•rj  *v«  i->a. 

xr  v  •.^'-7  v'  •••*! 
^S^BBm^Eir!>fv*3aarJ3;  .XY  ;;„ ... 


■"  V  •-  »'  -  rm  .^,r 

n, ,  V  vfrf**  ->•»•««>  • 

»%■  >t*y i'wwwv^:rr,n.f1n,4  ,  , 


'’^WVin'/  V  V*  ■  -  «  ' -  •■  -•  •  <  4  1  ■  . . 

.< k ^i«)  v  ,-• » i,  j,  :.  »w%»vr'J-  '  4- 

||jUlW#)M>)*..f''  1  y  » 

•W  n  '  .  .1  •-  ...,'*  »14...  .  .1.4 


i’v-  '•Wi  r^vM  'U 
'  *■> 

r  -f  «r  v*  V"\  r  <  '_. 


*  “  '  V  4.  ,  .4  ,  ..  .  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 

.  .WW4  4-, 4.4"  i^.v. 

.  2x7:  , 

1a-vM  -  -  2  4/  t  ,.  itiu,  .  .**  rTi-^  »_  -  V**rtf>'  ^  ■■■•  ^2£5,'f  ^  **•**■>  '  *  *.v  -■  Lj  •  j  .  t»»’VV|  V  *1 

-*  I  .4  >  U  lrt4Wl  .  1  ....... 


rZ?’  u-,4,..,  w;rx.'^.r ;’ ,  “  ”'  “'  ***••'•'  -  •'X'.,z;r73»« 

>'wv4>|.-^V<4^t4  .<  40V4.V4-.  ,  wXiXZ-.  .232*  7T,1’I'7  32^W” '  ^‘-J  •■•‘*w«<''  . 

w*4y...--v«^(^5CC;^y,rr:.  '•;n:r  • 


<;  Sftftf  ****+  ^  v  *•*»  739 1  <*  v 

“v*V‘,r-^v1(  >4  w  -r  »• .  i 


V’fwwMTrrw^m  ►‘•wwviiTWVlrv^w^'.iswW^X*. ■•-iXLT  z  ’  '  r  ‘ 

/ ..  ^  .  ./•  -  .  1 K  ,.  4  •  .  3g  g* ^  ^ . 

^rvv  /*rw y > . A#  ■ ,  vr  *Tyf-+x  .  4 ,.JX;  y  ^ JJJJ-f*.  ,-  ;  ►*  ■  ■ 

»52XQ0^7XJlrjfrZ;;  . :.' 


^vv  fTy  -  - 

^/‘YW  **'■*  t 
fVv  --n#  *  1  tfyt 


•»  ,r  *■  '  ”  ”  -4  rw »4v 

. .  .'yMW»wy'#LAfWV'»YV4Y  . 
erw  it#  •«  Wirv^^V’-'-fW  tJ-  • 

■ru  «-v-’'-i  kf^-r.r  .•.■ 

•W*U>  -kl-Jtfuv  *  r- 

* W^»v-v**l  Y-,|.|  . 


uyfVWV4  /v^fv'M-^iJ»*».i »,.  i*,.:  iifi  .  ’’’  "Tl  »  •  ”  J  H  ’'wv  >.»-  jy.rxi  - 

®«fC5«s5s2  -  4- ;'  7C.;C2U7 ; ;. : ,xr,jr^ 

•^^yn/vrov'..  .-v#v  ^w- ,  1,/^..  jr*'  ■  w  ./WU  #..‘/v  f  •  M  •  f.4- /  ,  f  m 

./-,*  ;vi4y  -w  -vvv  iSX  'iX'Z-'I  ST  ■-'  4'1  rt>»4M  ■ . ...  4-  .  ;  ,  ...  »w  -.  '  B  t  .  j 

'WMrtfVV’IV-.,  WYVa  ,<v./v  ^  y  .  ,  it  ^  ..  *  .'  '  '  ’  '  *  ■-•'•.-!.»  ..  ...  *k:s*  .  4. 

•;  •■■»'*^WVI(  .'.f’»VA<V<4  I.  -v  ,  ,  .  '*  *■+  I  \  r\'  s  1  j  y..,  -  4-,  4«.,if 

7^.— x,t :7£trrx57 '^ssssss ' '  ■  - 

f-  v.  >p.,  .'-w  ..  —  4*  r^vH.  -‘‘I?  '  '’****  ",-,w  *1--.  »v.  .#„.  -M>4., 

rfV^U*^*./V>^t4-%4>VM^wviV^hp7Xy'%rlr>^^I?*;4  Xt)C21'rWlfw>'<WVv'‘,,‘,v  *  •  Ww.»v4»,  v* 

y i/t/VOT,'  Wviv/^»w X  r„  .  .. ,  ;  ‘CCi?Ttr1rr*vK,v'*''v^'v'''w^<  v'w'  .s 

WV7W-‘*v,v  i4»yV.-..  --  **  ...  v,v-»  '  ■■  '*^>#v-.  4  .4 -  »'ttSf.  -w  4  ***'<.!  -■«.•■  .*,*^Tf. 

y^n>yy>  *y.yiuw>>*fc»vN  ,ww<  Jk4  ^4%iv»i  !T7 vr *^-w»j  av»».kr./  ,  v  ,-W(.vti  HHw<f 

ww^^SSiKSipa^ttrr’.-  '• 

XvCX  ^Jccssir sccix:'~» ;  .-Xtrxr^c; 

!^!  ii  1**  **  w\iH  tkfk.'  wy  ^V'Wa/v/  m  -^t  4\  t  ‘J  .4-  .,  -  —  ....... 

y  4*4w»i»vv>«.  ..jjvvw'u  V..777CC..1  .xsr^  i./!fki>-.'  *.~  • 


fctbrarp  of  Che  Cheological  ^erotnarp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

•d^SD’ 

Presented  by 

the  Society  of  inquiry  on  missions 

BV  4521  .D43  1923 

_ A  Defence  of  lay-teaching  _ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/defenceoflayteacOOunse 


A 


?2iijre£!TQr| 


TZZQLQGIC3 


►  «  *  r  •  *  *  13 


DEFENCE 


“  They  that  were  scattered  abroad  went  every  where  preaching.”— St.  Luke. 

“  After  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  all  the  disciples,  except  the  twelve  only, 
being  scattered  through  Judea  and  Samaria,  preached  to  the  Jews.” — Eusebius • 

“  Laymen — are  invited  to  preach  by  the— bishops.”— Alexander,  bishop  of  Jem- 
salem,—in  Eusebius. 

“  He  that  teaches,  although  he  be  one  of  the  laity,  yet  if  he  be  skilful  in  the 
word,  and  grave  in  his  manners,  let  him  teach.” — Constitutions. 

“  In  the  beginning  of  Christianity— a  general  commission  was  granted  unto 
all,— to  preach  the  gospel  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies.”— Hilary. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

Published  by  E.  Littell,  No.  88,  Chestnut  Street. 

Clark  &  Baser ,  Printers ,  33  Carter’s  Alley, 

1823. 


* 


Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  to  irit. 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  April,  in  the  forty- 
seventh  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  A.D.  1823, 
Eliakim  Littell,  of  the  said  district,  hath  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a 
book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  proprietor,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit: 

6i  A  Defence  of  Lay-Teaching. 

“  They  that  were  scattered  abroad  went  every  where  preaching." — St.  Luke. 

“  After  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  all  the  disciples,  except  the  twelve  only, 
being  scattered  through  Judea  and  Samaria,  preached  to  the  Jews.’' — Eusebius. 

“  Laymen — are  invited  to  preach  by  the — bishops” — Alexander ,  bishop  of  Je¬ 
rusalem, , — in  Eusebius. 

“  He  that  teaches,  although  he  be  one  of  the  laity,  yet  if  he  be  skilful  in  the 
word,  and  grave  in  his  manners,  let  him  teach.” — Constitutions. 

u  In  the  beginning  of  Christianity — a  general  commission  was  granted  unto 
all,— to  preach  the  gospel  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies.” — Hilary. 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  “  An 
Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts, 
and  Books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein 
mentioned” — And  also  to  the  act,  entitled,  “  An  Act  supplementary  to  an  Act, 
entitled,  ‘  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of 
Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned,’  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  design¬ 
ing,  engraving,  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints.” 

D.  CALDWELL, 

Clerk  of  the  Eastern  District  ol  Pennsylvania 


TO 


THE  TEACHING  AND  ITI-PRESBYTERS 

OF  THE 

PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

Reverend  Sirs, 

Nothing  is  to  be  said  here  of  your  virtues  or  your 

faults.  Being  assured  of  your  safety  you  may  now 

begin  to  think  of  your  rights.  An  apology  would  seem 

necessary  for  this  freedom.  But  it  will  he  neither 
* 

gain  nor  loss  to  you :  Except  that  some  of  you  may  be 

induced  to  purchase  a  copy  of  this  Defence. 

It  w  ould  not  be  proper  to  ask  such  to  read  it.  More 

valuable  books  lay  in  libraries  unread,  and  all  your 

leisure  is  not  more  than  sufficient  for  the  awful  charge 

you  undertook,  when  you  were  ordained  presbyters  of 

the  congregations  of  which  you  arc  bishops.  You  are 

all  included.  For  those  of  you  w  ho  were  first  ordained 

* 

rulers  of  nobody ,  were  afterwards  (installed  or)  really 
ordained. 

One  important  end  will  be  answered,  whether  you 
read  this  Defence  or  not.  It  is  designed  to  make  it  aid 
in  building  a  small  house  of  worship  for  the  occasional 


EPISTLE  DEDICATORY. 


iv 

use  of  Presbyterian,  German-reformed,  Episcopalian, 
Lutheran,  Baptist,  Methodist,  and  Schwenkfeldter 
Christians.  These  are  the  principal  denominations  near 
it,  and  having  a  considerable  resemblance  in  their 
creeds :  But  it  will  be  open  to  others. 

It  is  desirable  that  you  should  be  better  acquainted 
with  the  last  mentioned  denomination.  They  are  a 
moral  and  industrious  people.  Their  creed  permits 
only  the  baptism  of  adults. 

The  reason  for  presenting  this  worthy  people  to 
your  observation  is,  that  while  they  are  in  many  re¬ 
spects  a  pattern  to  others,  in  one  they  are  a  warning. 
They  acknowledge,  as  fully  as  you  do,  the  duty  of  bap¬ 
tizing  :  But  they  do  not  practise  it.  They  think  con¬ 
formity  to  the  apostolic  church,  in  doctrines  and  mo¬ 
rals,  sufficient.  Other  denominations  generally  dis¬ 
pense  with  principles,  important  as  regards  the  exten¬ 
sion  of  Christianity,  yet  acknowledged  to  be  scriptural: 
They  dispense  with  the  Christian  rites. 

What  reason  do  they  assign  ?  What  reason  do  other 
denominations  assign,  for  a  total  and  determined  aban¬ 
donment  of  principles  just  as  sacred  ? 

Men  have  not  the  right  to  decide  on  what  truths 
may  be  rejected  most  safely.  To  claim  such  right  is 
to  assume  as  true  that  false  and  dangerous  maxim 
which  tempted  to  the  first  human  sin. 


EPISTLE  DEDICATORY. 


V 


But  it  may  be  said,  with  confidence,  that  the  reli¬ 
gious  advantages,  and  the  necessity,  of  a  plurality  of 
teaching  pastors  in  a  congregation,  are  more  obyious 
than  those  of  baptism.  Each  truth  is  disputed  :  But 
each  is  perfectly  plain.  The  only  plausible  ground  on 
which  either  can  be  denied  is,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
not  inspired. 

No  blame  can  attach  to  any  one  of  you  on  account 
of  this  Defence.  For  this  epistle  dedicatory  (like  some 
irregular  ancient  ordinations  done  without  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  persons  ordained)  is  without  your  consent. 

May  your  remaining  days  be  crowned  with  increas¬ 
ing  usefulness  and  honour,  and  their  end  find  you  pre¬ 
pared  for  the  lot  of  those  who  turn  many  to  righteous¬ 
ness  !  Peace  be  within  the  walls  of  your  sacred  build¬ 
ings!  May  Christianity  prosper  in  these  palaces  of  the 
Most  High ! 

Your  senior-bishops  would,  in  almost  all  cases,  either 
consign  their  faithful  presbyters  to  the  diaconate,  or, 
in  spite  of  St.  Paul,  ordain  bishops  not  apt  to  teach ; 

'  or  rather,  what  that  blessed  martyr  probably  never 
imagined ,  not  having  the  right. 

Yet  more  than  one  of  them  possess  the  glory  of  hav¬ 
ing  almost  alone  among  the  bishops  adjacent  in  city 
and  country ,  declared  openly  their  opinion  in  behalf  of 


VI 


EPISTLE  DEDICATORY. 


the  right  of  all  the  brethren  to  teach  truth  (not  only 
that  of  little  value  to  mankind,  but  that)  infinitely  im¬ 
portant  for  men  to  understand. 


Yours,  kc.  &c. 


PREFACE. 


Having  little  hope,  when  commencing,  of  pleasing 
many  of  our  readers,  we  determined  to  gratify  our¬ 
selves  in  a  few  particulars.  We  hate  notes :  The  rea¬ 
der  will  not  find  himself  interrupted  by  one.  If  lie 
please,  he  may  conceive  of  a  portion  of  the  book  as 
transferred  to  the  margin :  But  he  can  certainly  read 
it  as  easily  in  the  text.  We  would  think  it  absurd 
for  as  to  sacrifice  the  subject  to  the  style,  as  if  writing 
poetry,  and  then  plague  him  with  illustrations,  either 
at  the  bottom  of  the  page  or  the  end  of  the  book. 

We  determined  also  to  be  as  brief  as  practicable. 
If  any  one  do  not  see,  that  we  have  avoided  quotation 
as  much  as  possible,  it  will  be  his  own  fault.  If  lie  be 
not  convinced  that  we  have  also  avoided  unnecessary 
discussions,  we  shall  regret  it:  For  we  are  just  now 
giving  ourselves  great  credit  for  this  uncommon  virtue. 

Throughout  our  short  course  we  preferred  proposing 
our  sentiments  at  once,  where  they  could  be  presented 
without  preface,  to  introducing  the  subject  again  in  a 
new  section,  at  a  greater  expense,  to  the  reader,  of 
money,  time,  and  attention. 

But  still  if,  as  often  happens  to  A  Presbyterian,  ano¬ 
ther  think  not  as  highly  of  us  as  we  do  of  ourselves, 
we  beg  him  to  remember,  that  we  have  laboured  for 
him  and  for  the  public. 


Mil 


PREFACE. 


We  claim  the  right,  as  we  do  others,  to  quote  an 
ancient  author  in  a  modern.  Nor  do  we  think  the 
quotation  less  valuable,  because  taken  from  such  men 
as  those  of  whose  researches  we  have  availed  ourself. 
Even  they,  however,  may  have  made  an  unintentional 
mistake,  in  transcribing  or  translating.  If  we  shall 
have  committed  an  error  of  this  kind,  we  assure  the 
reader  it  will  not  have  been  for  want  of  a  sincere,  and 
anxious  desire,  to  give  him  true  information.  We  have 
not  endeavoured  to  convince  him,  at  the  expense  of  a 
single  shade  of  truth. 

We  wish  to  anticipate  one  thing  that  will  certainly 
occur.  It  will  be  said  that  such  a  Defence  should  have 
been  made  only  bv  one  who  had  careful!  v  read  through 
all  the  writers  cited  as  authorities,  and  others  of  the 
first  ages. 

Now  we  admit  the  value  of  such  scholars.  But  they 
are  not  as  common  as  some  would  imagine.  We  knew 
not  where  to  lay  our  hand  on  one  who  was  willing  to 
defend  all  'ice  defend.  And  lay-teaching  itself  is  de¬ 
spised  by  some  who  admit  its  correctness.  And,  in 
addition,  we  ask,  Does  this  undertaking,  cleared  as  the 
way  is,  require  such  immense  erudition  ? 

Than  the  truths  we  defend  no  truths  are  plainer. 
Must  we  either  refuse  to  decide  on  the  point  at  issue, 
or  wade  through  all  the  rubbish  of  antiquity  ?  Men  in 
whom  we  can  confide,  and  whose  systems  we  can  exa¬ 
mine,  have  often9  without  intending  it,  led  the  way. 

It  is  a  folly  to  consume  life  in  what  has  been  suffi¬ 
ciently  done.  They,  indeed,  lost  theirs  in  doing  nothing 
laboriously ,  if  their  labours  are  to  be  accounted  of  no 


PREFACE. 


IX 


value.  Some  one  was  wanting  to  collect  the  proofs  on 
this  subject.  And  if  of  the  seniores  dignitate  sitting 
in  cathedris,  some  are  unwilling  to  go  all  the  length  of 
truth,  and  others  violently  oppose  it,  and  those  fol¬ 
lowing  on  their  lower  benches  follow  their  conduct, 
to  one  of  the  novissimi  let  an  opportunity  of  speaking 
he  given,  nor  let  him  be  despised . 

We  answer  further :  Man  is  a  proud  creature.  This 
objection  will  be  made  by  those  who  have  quoted  from 
hooks  which  they  not  only  never  read,  hut  never  saw  . 
We  have  quoted  only  from  books  in  our  hands,  and 
which,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  we  have  carefully 
read . 

When  we  quote  ancient  authors,  it  is  almost  always 
(as  we  read  them)  in  the  common  and  well-known 
translations.  This  is  particularly  allowable  in  a  de¬ 
fence  of  lay- teaching.  And  wre  here  respectfully  sug¬ 
gest  that  in  publications  intended  for  general  use,  the 
English  of  the  quotation  ought  to  be  given.  We  do  not 
now  speak  of  passages  objectionable  on  the  ground  of 
morals. 

There  is  often  an  affectation  of  quoting  in  the  dead 
languages,  so  as  not  to  scatter  scraps  of  learning 
among  the  lay-people,  tending  to  make  them  heretics 
or  sciolists.  Yet  perhaps  there  are  several  translations 
of  the  quotations  in  common  well-know  n  hooks,  and  it 
may  he  in  the  very  hook  whence  the  quoted  quotation 
is  taken. 

Many  sensible  and  respectable  clergymen  and  lay- 
teachers  are  confined  to  their  mother  tongue,  and 
others  have  small  Latin  and  less  Greek .  It  is  the  case 


X 


FKEFACE. 

with  ourself.  Yet  w  e  assure  the  reader,  that,  in  several 
instances,  we  have  carefully  examined  the  original 
where  we  have  quoted  at  second  hand.  This  w  as  in¬ 
duced  by  a  regard  for  truth,  and  also  by  the  dread  of 
tumbling  among  six  thousand  bishops.  We  w  ould  fear 
not  getting  out  as  easily  as  d  Presbyterian  did  on  a 
similar  occasion. 

Knowledge  will  not  injure.  It  is  opposition  to  truth 
that  often  causes  it,  in  the  hands  of  the  evil-designing, 
to  burst  like  a  torrent,  when  at  last  it  tears  aw  ay  the 
artificial  dams  that  restrain  it. 

Our  apology  for  the  want  of  the  page,  &c.  of  the 
w  orks  cited,  is  this  :  We  collected  our  principal  quo¬ 
tations,  and  reflected  on  the  subject,  before  w  e  ventured 
to  w  rite.  We  did  not  calculate  at  first  on  any  thing 
more  than  a  very  small  pamphlet  and  a  very  few* cita¬ 
tions.  Had  we  then  designed  as  many  as  we  have 
made,  we  would  have  proceeded  on  a  different  plan. 

In  order  to  prevent  certain  mistakes,  and  that  our 
anonymous  Defence  may  not  injure  others,  we  say, 
that  the  writer  has  not  been  assisted,  by  any  one,  in 
any  way  whatever. 

“  We  shall  heartily  thank  any  learned  person,  that 
“  will  be  so  kind  as  to  inform  us,  if  he  know  s  us  to 
“  have  erred  in  any  one  or  more  particulars,  publicly, 
“  or  privately  by  letter  to  our  bookseller,  and  we  pro- 
“  mise,  if  our  mistakes  are  fairly  show  n,  we  w  ill  most 
66  willingly  renounce  them.” 

dpril  21,  1823. 


CONTENTS 


Epistle  Dedicatory . Page  iu 

Preface  ----------  vii 


Defence — Sect.  I.  The  World  cannot  be  regenerated  on  the  pre¬ 
sent  Plan. — There  are  ignorant  and  vicious  Presbyters  as  well 
as  Lay-teachers. — One  probable  source  of  Hostility  to  Lay- 
teaching  . 13 

II.  Statement  of  the  Subject. — Uncertainty,  of  our  Opponents’ 

Claims. — What  we  do  not  assert. — What  we  contend  for  17 

III.  Arguments  against  Lay-teaching,  derived  from  the  Mosaic 

Economy,  unfounded  in  every  respect. — The  Jewish  Priest¬ 
hood  never  claimed  the  exclusive  Right  of  Teaching. — The 
necessity  of  License  an  absurdity  23 

IV.  The  Lay -teacher  has  the  same  Providential  assistance  as  others. 

— Creeds,  as  commonly  used,  are  useless  and  pernicious  26 

V.  A  Knowledge  of  the  Original  Language  of  the  New  Testament 

not  essential  for  a  Teacher. — License  of  an  Ecclesiastical  Coun¬ 
cil  no  Diploma . 28 

VI.  The  only  Scriptural  Council  a  Session  of  Teaching  Presbyters. — 

Missionary  Associations  Scriptural  and  useful  -  -  30 

VII.  Councils  injurious  to  Religion. — Creeds  trammel  licensed 

Men. — They  have  however  a  legitimate  use  -  -  36 

VIII.  Lay -teachers  have  the  same  promise  of  peculiar  aid  as 

others. — The  Claims  of  the  Apostles  were  not  equal  in  some 
respects  to  those  of  modern  Presbyters. — We  do  not  advocate 
ignorance. — Licensed  Men  have  done  mischief  in  the  Church 
as  well  as  unlicensed . 40 

IX.  The  authority  of  the  Lay-teacher. — Laymen  taught  in  the 

Jewish  Synagogue. — No  Lay-elders  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
Christian  Church . 43 

X.  Hilary’s  Se?iiores. — Eminent  Men  of  the  Church  always  con¬ 

sulted,  till  near  Hilary’s  time  -----  51 

XI.  He  knew  nothing  of  a  mute  Elder. — The  chief  Men  among 

the  Brethren,  and  the  Prophets  and  Teachers  of  the  Corin¬ 
thian  Church,  were  Seniores. — In  Hilary’s  day  the  people  ge¬ 
nerally  were  deprived  of  their  Ecclesiastical  Rights  -  55 

XII.  The  Presbyters  had  then  ceased  to  be,  properly  the  Bishop’s 

Council. — Unfair  mode  of  making  deductions  from  Quota¬ 
tions  ...63 

XIII.  Lay-elder  not  in  the  Constitutions  68 

XIV.  Nor  in  Ignatius . -72 


Xll 


CONTENTS 


XV.  Bishops  and  Presbyters  in  the  first  age  the  same. — They  dif¬ 
fered  only  in  degree,  throughout  the  three  first  Centuries 

74 

XVI.  Re-ordination  of  Bishops. — New  Testament  Ordination  81 

XVII.  Presbyters  really  rulers  of  the  Congregation  where  they 

were  ordained. — Deacons . 83 

XVIII.  Succession  of  Bishops  . 89 

XIX.  Absurdity  of  supposing  the  ancient  Presbyter  a  mute  Elder. — 

Wisdom  of  the  New  Testament  Ecclesiastical  Polity  93 

XX.  After  Stephen’s  death  the  Christians  scattered  abroad,  went 

every  where  preaching. — Philip. — Apollos. — The  Corinthian 
Church. — Apostolical  Deputies,  and  common  Pastors  and 
Teachers . 97 

XXI.  Hilary, — and  Tertullian, — respecting  the  original  Economy 

of  the  Church. — Celsus. — Hermas  ....  103 

XXII.  Ignatius. — Eusebius. — Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna  109 

XXIII.  Origen  and  Demetrius. — Origen  preached  at  Alexandria 
while  a  Layman. — A  Bishop’s  invitation  to  preach  not  a  Li¬ 
cense  -  -  -  ...  -  -  .  -  Ill 

XXIV.  Origen’s  office  as  Catechist  conferred  no  right  to  teach. — 

No  dispute  then  respecting  Lay-teaching. — The  case  of  Ori¬ 
gen  and  Demetrius  does  not  prove  the  infrequency  of  Lay- 
teaching  ---------  114 

XXV.  Frumentius. — Monks  in  time  of  Athanasius. — Constantine 

117 

XXVI.  Larger  Epistles  of  Ignatius  -  121 

XXVII.  Apostolical  Constitutions. — This  Book  proves  decisively 
that  the  denunciations  of  the  fourth  and  preceding  ages 
against  invasion  of  priestly  offices,  do  not  refer  to  teaching 

126 

XXVIII.  The  notion  of  such  an  inferior  order  of  the  Ministry  as 
Catechist ,  is  totally  erroneous . 130 

XXIX.  The  exclusion  of  Deacon  from  public  Teaching. — The 

word  antiquity  ambiguous. — Much  virtue  amidst  the  vices  of 
the  degenerating  Christian  Church  -  -  -  132 

XXX.  At  an  early  period  most  able  Teachers  would  naturally  be 

disposed  to  enter  the  clerical  orders  -  135 

XXXI.  Leo,  in  the  fifth  Century,  denounced  Lay-teaching  137 

XXXII.  Dr.  Campbell. — Mr.  Robinson. — Huss. - And  Jerome 

140 

XXXIII.  There  is  danger  that  Laymen’s  exertions  may  cease. — 
A  cause  that  would  justify  this,  would  save  them  much 
trouble . 142 


A  DEFENCE 


I.  Miracles,  in  the  opinion  of  a  celebrated  writer, 
must  be  the  medium  of  introducing  the  universal 
reign  of  Christ,  as  they  were  of  the  establishment  of 
his  kingdom  on  the  earth.  Let  us  not,  however,  de¬ 
cide  too  positively,  on  the  future  means  to  be  employ¬ 
ed  by  infinite  wisdom  for  the  extension  of  the  church. 
The  economy  of  the  divine  operations  would  lead  us 
to  a  different  conclusion.  Means  are  not  wasted. 
u  Gather  up  the  fragments  that  nothing  be  lost,”  said 
our  Lord,  after  a  miracle  multiplying  food. 

Miracles  are  not  again  necessary.  The  demonstra¬ 
tion  of  the  power  of  God  was  once  thus  given  to  the 
truth.  The  system  of  doctrines  and  morals  are  still 
the  same.  And  instruction  is  sufficient  to  convey  to 
mankind  a  knowledge  of  its  nature  and  evidence. 
Besides,  having  no  assurance  of  other  means,  we 
ought  not  to  expect  them  :  It  leads  to  the  neglect  of 
those  we  possess . 

The  success  of  our  own  age  confirms  our  senti¬ 
ment.  Mere  human  instruction,  displaying  the  ori¬ 
ginal  truths  and  proofs  of  Christian  doctrine,  unaided 
by  recent  miracles,  or  the  pretension  to  them,  has 
amazed  us  by  the  result. 

But,  how  little  is  effected  compared  with  what  re¬ 
mains  to  be  done!  We  have  seen  the  daybreak: 
When  will  the  shadows  flee  away  ?  When  will  the 
earth  be  u  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the 

B 


14 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  waters  cover  the  sea  ?”  Never ,  till  many  shall  run 
to  and  fro,  and  thus  knowledge  be  increased. 

Never,  by  the  present  mode  of  instruction.  Real 
teachers  are  now  too  few.  Nor  can  they,  according 
to  existing  systems,  be  increased,  in  a  ratio  corres¬ 
ponding  with  the  want  of  them.  The  world  never 
will  be  regenerated  on  the  present  ecclesiastical  plan. 

Why  is  there  such  an  opposition  to  the  increase  of 
knowledge  ?  Are  men  indifferent  with  respect  to  the 
end,  or  averse  to  the  means  ?  The  thought  is  horri¬ 
ble,  (but,  with  regard  to  some,  it  is  too  unquestiona¬ 
bly  true,)  that  many  are  saying  with  their  lips, 
u  Come  Lord  Jesus,”  wThile  in  their  hearts  they  are 
at  least  wholly  indifferent  to  his  coming.  There  are 
impious  clergy  as  well  as  laymen.  It  is  foolish  and 
sinful  to  pretend  the  contrary.  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles  did  not  hide  this  fact. 

The  comparative  perfection  of  human  nature  and 
happiness,  however,  even  on  earth,  is  an  object  so 
possible,  and  so  devoutly  to  be  wished,  that  we  can 
hardly  conceive  of  a  reflecting  man  so  destitute  of 
humanity,  as  not  earnestly  to  desire  it,  and  if  he  be 
not  an  unbeliever,  to  expect  it. 

But  when  this  earth  is  forgotten,  and  we  view  the 
men  around  us  as  heirs  of  immortality,  what  idea 
can  we  form  of  him,  who  interposes  between  them 
and  instruction,  acknowledged  to  be  the  truth,  and 
talks  of  damnation  with  the  same  coolness  he  would 
of  trigonometry  ?  Can  we  wThollv  excuse  a  good  man 
who,  to  every  suggestion  of  the  kind  just  now  made, 
and  professing  to  receive  the  sentiments  by  which 
the  suggestion  is  naturally  produced,  only  replies, 
Vain,  arrogant ,  superficial,  efithusiastic  sciolist !  The 
honour  of  the  clergy  ! 

You  must  be  licensed  :  and  in  order  to  this  you 
must  wait  some  years,  before  you  can  venture  tc 
save  souls.  Why  cannot  a  man  teach  his  more  igno¬ 
rant  neighbours,  what  he  has  acquired  by  research , 


LAY-TEACHING. 


15 


or  excite  the  thoughtless  to  reflection,  as  well  as 
those  vicious  licensed  priests,  with  whom  some  parts 
of  the  world  swarm  ?  There  are  enough,  all  acknozv- 
ledge ,  of  licensed  and  ordained  ignorant  and  irreli¬ 
gious  men.  This  is  not  contested.  It  cannot  be 
hidden.  We  mention  it  now,  only  as  rendering  more 
cruel  the  attempt  to  lessen  the  number  of  preachers 
on  principle ,  whether  licensed  men  or  laymen. 

We  abhor  the  crime  of  asserting  a  want  of  princi¬ 
ple  in  clergymen  generally.  We  despise  the  baseness 
of  wishing  unnecessarily  to  lessen  the  love  of  his 
people,  or  of  the  Christian  world,  for  any  pious  pas¬ 
tor  or  teacher,  however  defective.  But  the  ground 
zvhich  our  opponents  assume  renders  it  essentially 
necessary  to  adduce  clerical  defects,  universally 
known.  This  defence  will,  however,  furnish  no 
cause  for  a  charge  of  hostility  to  the  clergy.  Ill 
temper  may  make  it.  We  protest  against  it.  We 
venerate  and  love  the  pious  pastors  of  the  churches 
of  all  denominations ,  and  all  pious  Christian  licensed 
teachers. 

The  enemy  of  lay-teaching  disclaims  any  connexion 
with  worthless  priests.  We  use  this  word,  not  as  a 
term  of  reproach ;  and  not  only  because  some  deno¬ 
minations  are  so  fond  of  it,  but  because  even  presby- 
terians,  to  the  great  regret  of  some  of  their  hearers, 
are  becoming  frequent  in  the  use  of  it.  W e  know 
it  may  mean  presbyter.  But  we  also  know  that  such 
expressions  as  this,  The  functions  of  the  priesthood , 
are  designed  to  throw  a  false  and  unholy  air  of  mys¬ 
tery  around  the  office  of  the  Christian  pastor,  and 
that  of  the  Christian  teacher,  for  which  men  must  re¬ 
sort,  but  as  we  shall  show  in  vain ,  to  a  dispensation, 
long  since  vanished  away.  It  cannot,  with  the  ap¬ 
pearance  of  truth,  be  derived  from  the  apostolic 
writings.  It  existed  not  either  in  the  Jewish  or 
Christian  synagogue . 

The  enemy  of  lay-teaching  disclaims  any  connexion 


16 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


with  worthless  priests.  But  he  takes  the  ground  that 
associates  them  all  with  himself.  They  belong  to  the 
corps ,  (as  he  must  on  his  own  principles  acknow¬ 
ledge,)  whose  exclusive  rights  he  defends,  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  every  natural  advantage,  and  to  every  virtue, 
if  unlicensed  to  do  good.  They  belong  to  the  corps, 
he  must  confess,  though  many  of  them  would,  on  his 
own  principles,  spurn  him  from  it,  as  a  mere  layman, 
licensed  by  no  authority  derived  from  Christ.  Do 
catholics  or  episcopalians  acknowledge  that  presbyte- 
rians  derive  their  ecclesiastical  power  from  men  em¬ 
powered  to  give  it  ?  Do  not  a  large  and  respectable 
denomination,  whose  ministers  are  becoming  ex¬ 
ceedingly  jealous  of  their  ecclesiastical  rights ,  de¬ 
rive  their  authority  from  men  not  ordained  to  give 
it  ?  A  commission  to  teach,  excluding  power  to  or¬ 
dain,  surely  does  not  confer  this  authority. 

The  clergyman  sometimes  makes  a  certain  and 
respectable  living  as  a  teacher.  And  a  pious  teacher 
is  worthy  of  his  hire.  The  inducements  which  the 
ministry  now  offers,  even  to  inferior  talents,  render 
it  more  attractive  to  a  good  man,  (dependent  on  his 
exertions  for  support,  and  not  the  less  honourable,) 
than  any  other  of  the  learned  professions.  Ministers 
of  no  great  natural  talent,  and  very  defective  in  ac¬ 
quirements,  even  in  cities,  fill  most  respectable  situa¬ 
tions. 

A  man  of  talents  may  think  the  gospel  under  great 
obligations  to  him,  because  he  has  made  divinity  the 
source  of  his  honours  and  emoluments.  But  he  sees 
another  willing  to  abandon  the  pursuit  of  earthly 
things,  and  to  devote  himself  to  Him  who  died  for 
his  redemption,  without  charging  the  Lord  with  a 
salary  or  cathedral.  Does  this  displease  him  ?  It 
ought  not.  If  he  who  rules  well  and  labours  in  the 
word  is  worthy  of  ample  support,  he  is  no  less  wor¬ 
thy,  his  remuneration  is  no  less  justly  due,  because 
another  does  not  need  it. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


17 


But  let  not  laymen  triumph  in  the  faults  or  frail¬ 
ties  of  the  clergy.  These  faults  are  theirs.  And  they 
have  no  real  interests  distinct  from  each  other.  The 
sins  of  both  clergy  and  lay-people  each  should  mourn. 
Let  them  not  imitate  each  other  in  insinuations  of 
ambition  and  envy:  For  the  same  charge  may  attach 
to  each — in  part  real,  in  part  unjust. 

II.  We  assert  the  reasonableness  of  lav-teaching, 
— the  safety  'of  the  lay-teacher, — and  his  authority 
from  the  Scriptures, — confirmed  by  the  practice  of 
the  primitive  church. 

Let  us  state  the  question.  It  is  not  done  by  our 
opponents,  in  their  late  attacks.  There  is  a  surpris¬ 
ing  want  of  precision  in  their  mode  of  treating  it. 
u  A  Presbyterian,”  in  the  Christian  Advocate  for 
Jan.  1823,  would  have  done  it :  But  in  the  course  of 
that  piece,  he  found  it  u  not  an  easy  thing”  to  exhibit 
his  own  sentiments,  without  his-self  refuting  them. 
He  had  too  much  information  to  pretend  to  discuss 
the  subject  at  all,  without  adverting  to  the  practice  of 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  synagogue.  But  how  pain¬ 
ful  is  it  to  see  a  good  man  betrayed  by  prejudice  into 
an  attempt  to  wring  inspiration  into  the  presbyterian 
variety  of  elder.  We  are  informed  that  these  un¬ 
happy  thoughts ,  which  have  weakened  the  hands  of 
some  of  the  most  judicious  lay-teachers,  are  not 
those  of  the  pious  and  learned  editor  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Advocate,  though  we  doubt  not  he  would  advo¬ 
cate  them. 

Sometimes  our  opponents  contend  for  license , 
sometimes  for  ordination.  There  are  presbyterians 
who  consider  mere  license  as  insufficient  to  give  a 
man  authority  to  pronounce  in  a  large  assembly  this 
text  of  holy  writ,  u  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
“  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.”  We  have  heard  of  pres¬ 
byterian  ministers  who  said,  that  while  only  licensed, 
they  scrupled  to  offer  Jesus  Christ  to  sinful  men. 

Sometimes  what  they  contend  for  is  the  act  of  one 

B  2 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


18 

man.  In  some  churches,  the  pastor  of  a  congregation, 
or  of  several  congregations,  gives  a  student  a  general 
(we  believe  verbal)  license  or  permission  to  preach 
in  these,  when  invited  by  him,  {in  or  out  of  his  pre¬ 
sence,)  and,  we  believe,  in  others,  if  invited  ;  and  to 
read  the  funeral  service ;  and,  perhaps,  to  perform 
some  other  ministerial  functions.  This  permission, 
however  communicated,  is,  by  his  authority,  founded 
on  examination,  (for  he  is  his  student, '  and  arrived 
at  that  point  when  he  is  judged  jit  .*)  And  it  is  de¬ 
fined,  though  verbal.  “  A  Presbyterian’s”  notion  of 
the  right  of  students  of  divinity  cannot  be  referred 
to  this  head  without  doing  others  injustice.  We  are 
afraid  to  touch  it.  We  cannot  comprehend  it.  There 
is  something  rational  in  saying  a  bishop  may  license 
his  student  when  he  judges  him  fit,  and  examination 
is  especially  necessary  with  a  boy  perhaps  of  fifteen. 
But  a  presbyterian’s  license  is  founded  on  the  lad’s 
having  commenced  the  study  of  Christianity.  This, 
he  says,  makes  it  proper  for  him  to  teach  others .  If 
a  man  have  the  unblushing  effrontery  to  reply  that 
those  called  students  are  always  young  men  who 
have  studied  truth,  we  would  only  say  we  wish  we 
did  not  know  otherwise.  Let  the  reader  recollect 
that  w  A  Presbyterian,”  and  we,  in  our  assertions, 
include  students  of  all  denominations. 

In  any  thing  we  have  just  said,  we  do  not  design 
to  admit  St.  Paul  and  the  ancient  church  to  have 
been  in  an  error.  Says  Lord  King,  speaking  of  the 
candidate  for  ordination,  u  It  was  necessary  for 
tl  him  to  have  been  of  a  ripe  and  mature  age,  for 
u  they  ordained  no  novices  or  young  striplings. 
u  That  was  the  practice  of  the  heretics.”  There 
were,  no  doubt,  exceptions  to  the  general  rule. 

Sometimes  what  they  contend  for  is  the  act  of  a 
diocesan  bishop ;  sometimes  it  is  the  act  of  three 
or  more  laymen.  Some  presbyterian  clergymen  con¬ 
sider  the  last  as  sufficient  to  authorize  them  to  per- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


19 

mit  such  licenciate  to  preach  in  their  pulpits.  Some¬ 
times  it  is  the  act  of  an  ecclesiastical  court ;  some¬ 
times  of  a  simple  association ,  disclaiming  the  powers 
of  a  court. 

Sometimes  what  they  contend  for,  is  the  act  of 
men  mad  with  orthodoxy ;  sometimes  of  persons 
hardly  Christians  in  any  sense.  There  are  sects  de¬ 
scribed  in  church  history  who  perform  u  ecclesiasti- 
u  cal  acts,”  but  whose  Christianity  is  problematical 
to  any  historian. 

The  loose  and  unmeaning  phrase  just  quoted,  is 
from  that  strange  piece,  in  the  Presbyterian  Maga¬ 
zine  for  February,  1821,  so  replete  with  assertions 
utterly  destitute  of  proof,  and  in  the  face  of  fact. 
We  believe  the  gentleman  did  not  wish  to  be  under¬ 
stood  as  proving  his  positions. 

Presbyterians  sometimes  reason  as  if  the  license 
of  any  Christian  denomination  was  sufficient,  yet 
they  reject  the  authority  of  some ;  and  no  man  could 
say  beforehand  how  they  would  decide  with  regard 
to  others.  The  license  which  one  presbyterian  indi¬ 
vidual  or  council  rejects,  another  receives.  Besides, 
the  license  of  some  of  the  most  worthless  men  is 
precisely  that  which  cannot  be  rejected ,  unless  the 
validity  of  the  authority  depends  on  the  piety  of 
those  who  give  it. 

Sometimes  the  opponents  of  lay-teaching  contend 
for  the  exclusive  right  to  teach,  not  only  of  men  or¬ 
dained  to  teach ,  but  also  of  men  ordained,  not  to 
teach ,  but  to  assist  the  pastor  in  ruling.  We  know 
at  least  one  gentleman  of  this  kind.  He  tells  the 
presbyterian  lay-elder^,  that  their  ordination  gives 
them  a  right  to  teacrq  zohich  they  had  not  before. 
The  book  which  he  holds  in  his  hand  while  ordain¬ 
ing,  most  decidedly  and  absolutely  excludes  from 
teaching  all  except  pastors,  and  candidates  for  the 
ministry ,  who  have  been  examined  with  respect  to 
their  qualifications  to  teach,  and  licensed.  By  a 


20 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


teaching  elder  that  book  surely  means  a  clergyman. 
But  the  lay-elder  is  told  that  he  now  receives  a  right 
to  do,  what  he  is  just  then  pledging  himself  not  to 
do.  For  is  he  not  then  subscribing  to  the  book  held 
up  before  him  ? 

We  do  not  now  meddle  at  all  with  the  question 
how  far  each  kind  of  elder  in  that  church  is  bound 
by  his  subscription.  What  we  assert  is,  that  the  lay- 
elder  derives  from  his  ordination  no  right  to  teach. 
But  if  it  were  admitted  that  any  one  clergyman  is  at 
liberty  to  make  essential  alterations  in  the  frame  of 
its  government,  our  defence  would  be  almost  unne¬ 
cessary.  There  are  individual  pastors  who  have 
sanctioned  lay-teaching  as  far  as  we  ruish  it.  The 
precise  difference,  as  we  understand  it,  which  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  exist  between  the  two  kind  of  presbyters,  is 
this  :  The  one  derives  from  his  office  no  right  to 
teach,  be,  And  this  fact  alone ,  if  real ,  would  prove 
that  private  Christians  possess  no  such  right.  Where, 
then,  does  the  lay-elder’s  right  come  from  ? 

Sometimes  they  admit  a  right  to  exhort,  but  dis¬ 
tinguish  between  the  exhortation  of  a  man  possessing 
a  competent  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
and  his  teaching.  Is  it  probable  that  he  can  exhort 
without  teaching?  If  possible,  it  were  a  cruel  impo¬ 
sition  to  tell  a  man  to  exhort  men  to  faith  in  Jesus, 
and  yet  under  the  penalty  of  the  curse  of  Korah,  and 
of  other  sinners,  held  up  for  our  warning  by  inspi¬ 
ration,  forbid  him  to  explain  what  faith  is,  or  to 
propose  the  evidence  on  which  faith  rests.  If  they  do 
not,  (by  preaching,  in  opposition  to  exhortation,)  in¬ 
tend  the  discussion  of  such  themes  as  these  two,  we 
confess  ourselves  ignorant  of  what  they  mean. 

Every  man  who  reflects  will  see  the  extreme  diffi¬ 
culty  of  deciding  on  the  question,  what  kind  or 
quantity  of  instruction,  necessarily  in  some  degree 
introduced  with  exhortation,  changes  it  into  teach¬ 
ing.  Now  they  tell  a  man,  too  ignorant  in  their  opi- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


21 


nion  to  teach,  to  discriminate  accurately  between  the 
one  and  the  other.  Whereas  the  teaching  requires 
no  extraordinary  talent,  this  discrimination  requires 
almost  superhuman  penetration. 

Does  exhortation  in  the  New  Testament  always 
mean  something  inferior  to  teaching  ?  Says  Luke 
speaking  of  Paul,  “  When  he  had  gone  over  these 
u parts ,  and  had  given  them  much  exhortation.”  If 
we  recollect  right,  an  ancient  writer  understands  by 
teachers  those  who  instructed  children.  Did  the 
first  Christians  waste  their  time  and  energy  in  such 
employments  as  calculating  what  the  difference  con¬ 
sisted  in?  To  urge  exhorters  to  the  duty  of  exhorta¬ 
tion  is  quite  another  thing  than  debarring  them  from 
teaching.  “  A  Presbyterian,”  however,  gives  up  this 
old  distinction.  He  places  lay-exhorters  also  among 
the  children  of  “  sorrow,”  “shame,”  and  “  sin.” 

We  do  not  assert  that  a  layman,  or  a  clergyman, 
has  any  other  than  a  knowledge,  more  or  less  imper¬ 
fect,  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  We  do  not  defend  a 
clergyman  or  layman  in  attempting  to  discuss  that  of 
which  he  is  ignorant. 

We  do  not  question  that  anciently  the  apostles  in¬ 
dividually,  and  the  apostolical  college,  and  the  apos¬ 
tolical  deputies,  and  the  presbytery,  (or  college  of 
pastors,)  of  one  congregation,  meeting  for  divine 
worship  in  one  room ,  or  the  brethren  and  teachers  of 
one  congregation,  if  there  were  yet  no  pastors  ordain¬ 
ed  over  it,  committed  the  gospel  to  faithful  men,  and 
sent  them  out  to  the  world,  as  teachers,  and  invited 
and  urged  them  to  preach  the  gospel. 

W e  do  not  pretend  that  any  man,  in  the  apostolic 
day,  or  now,  consistently  with  the  Scriptures  or 
sound  sense,  can  teach  in  an  assembled  congregation, 
without  the  approbation  of  the  rulers  of  that  church. 
We  do  not  consider  the  “  pulpit  free”  from  the  in¬ 
spection  of  the  rulers.  But  the  earth  is  the  Lord’s. 
And  we  do  not  admit  that  because  that  venerable 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


22 

pastor  who  oversees  the  episcopal  church  in  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  has  individuals  of  his  flock  throughout  the 
state,  the  preaching  of  other  men  on  that  ground  in¬ 
vades  his  parish.  That  good  bishop  never  made 
such  claims.  The  claims  of  Rome  are  not  more 
absurd.  The  pastors  of  one  congregation  are  not 
pastors  of  the  world.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  uni¬ 
versal  bishop.  His  apostles  and  their  apostolical  de¬ 
puties  had  extraordinary  powers  :  But  the  want  of 
inspiration  cuts  off  the  succession. 

The  duty  of  adhering  to  pious  teachers  is  opposed 
to  a  criminal  love  of  novelty.  But  to  debar  men 
from  teaching  and  from  hearing  important  truth, 
overwhelms  the  world  with  spiritual  darkness.  We 
cannot  draw  the  line  except  by  this  plain  scriptural 
distinction  :  The  pulpit  is  the  pastor’s ;  it  is  mine  if 
he  allows:  But  a  mountain  in  Judea,  the  Hill-of- 
Mars,  the  sea-side,  or  a  market-house,  (if  unoccu¬ 
pied  by  a  religious  teacher)  is  mine  without  his  per¬ 
mission. 

We  contend  that  any  Christian  teacher,  though  not 
the  pastor  of  one  congregation,  may  teach  and  con¬ 
vert  the  world  if  he  can.  He  is  answerable  to  God, 
however,  that  he  do  not  endeavour  to  disturb  the 
congregation  of  a  pious  bishop.  Within  a  reasona¬ 
ble  distance  of  such  a  pastor’s  altar,  he  should  among 
other  things  exhort  to  attendance  on  that  parish  church. 
He  should  rejoice  if  the  man  who  hears  him  to  day, 
on  the  next  Lord’s-day  hastens  devoutly  to  the  house 
of  the  Lord. 

We  contend  that  it  is  the  right  of  all  Christians, 
with  humility  and  caution,  to  judge  how  far  they  are 
capable  of  teaching  others  the  way  to  everlasting 
life ;  and,  if  they  think  themselves  in  any  degree 
qualified,  so  far  to  exercise  their  talents.  This  is 
the  doctrine  we  defend. 

We  assert  that  nothing  but  claims  and  habits,  in¬ 
duced  and  fostered  by  corruption  in  the  church. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


25 


could  blind  men  to  the  fact,  that  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  apostles  never,  in  the  smallest  degree,  discouraged 
a  work  so  holy  and  beneficial  as  teaching  the  truth. 
Recommending  caution  in  selecting,  from  the  teach¬ 
ers,  the  pastors  of  a  church,  was  a  far  different 
thing. 

III.  The  Mosaic  system  was  national,  ceremonial, 
and  typical.  It  was  not  for  the  world.  We  would 
not  be  able  to  see  the  wisdom  of  God  in  it,  if  it  had 
been  designed,  like  modern  conflicting  ecclesiastical 
establishments  to  cover  quarters  of  the  globe. 

Its  creed  was  simple.  What  it  required  (as  re¬ 
gards  our  subject)  under  pain  of  the  divine  displea¬ 
sure,  could  not  be  misunderstood.  Uniformity,  and 
a  hereditary  priesthood,  were  both  necessary  in  the 
age,  and  circumstances,  and  with  the  objects  of  its 
institution. 

To  regulate  a  perfect  religion,  designed  for  the 
world,  and  for  the  last  and  permanent  age  of  the 
church,  by  the  usages  of  an  institution  so  much  its 
oppcsite,  is  not  rational.  It  is  not  doing  justice  to 
the  souls  of  men,  or  to  the  character  of  Him,  who 
was  the  author  and  the  finisher  of  our  faith,  as  well 
as  of  the  Jewish. 

The  arguments  for  restricting  instruction  to  a 
selected  clergy,  drawn  from  the  hereditary  rights  of 
the  Jewish  priesthood,  men  of  sense  are  now  gene¬ 
rally  ashamed  of. 

But  still,  to  say  nothing  of  the  habit  of  describing 
Christian  pastors  as  priests,  we  are  told  roundly  you 
ought  not  to  instruct  the  ignorant  in  religious  truth, 
unless  you  are  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron .  Aaron 
was  called  by  inspiration,  and  miraculously,  in  a 
manner  that  could  not  be  mistaken.  No  Jew,  not 
of  his  family,  could  suppose  himself  authorized  to  of¬ 
fer  incense.  The  curse  of  Korah  could  fall  only  on 
wilful  disobedience  to  the  known  command  of  God. 
Not  merely  were  Aaron’s  sons  commanded  to  offer 


24 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


incense :  All  others  were  most  plainly  forbidden  to  do 
this  act .  Thus  expressly  as  regards  the  priestly 
acts,  and  plainly,  and  miraculously,  as  regards  the 
men,  were  Aaron  and  his  sons  called. 

But  our  opponents  mean  nothing  of  this  kind. 
They  mean  called  of  men ,  and  by  men:  They  mean 
an  “  ecclesiastical  act.”  And  an  “  ecclesiastical  act” 
is  the  permission  to  preach,  of  certain  persons,  some¬ 
times  really  too  ignorant  to  judge  of  the  qualifica¬ 
tions  of  others,  and  sometimes  most  flagitious  sin¬ 
ners.  The  indecent  conduct  of  some  men,  deriving 
their  ordination,  if  any  men  do,  really  by  uninter¬ 
rupted  succession  from  the  apostles  through  a  line 
of  men  ordained  to  ordain,  is  distressing  often  to 
persons  of  no  pietv.  Notwithstanding  to  be  autho¬ 
rized  by  such  men,  our  opponents  say,  is  to  be  called 
of  God  as  zuas  Aaron. 

No  candid  man  will  consider  us  as  referring  to 
bishops  and  presbyters  generally.  That  there  are 
ignorant  and  wicked  licensing  men,  surely  no  man 
will  deny. 

When  Christian  ministers  began  to  claim  the  pre¬ 
rogatives  of  Jewish  priests,  the  church  was  deeply 
corrupted.  We  are  thankful  that  a  scheme  so  fraught 
with  crimes  and  mischief,  as  the  experience  of  the 
world  has  proved  it  to  be,  evidently  was  not  the  dic¬ 
tate  of  inspired  men. 

Besides,  we  will  refer,  in  the  sequel,  to  the  fact, 
that  the  Jewish  priesthood  neither  possessed  nor 
claimed  the  exclusive  right  of  teaching.  They  were 
governors  in  the  house  of  God  arranged  by  Moses. 
But  teaching  was  common  to  them  and  their  brethren. 
We  mean  the  right  to  teach.  It  may  have  been , 
at  some  periods  of  the  Jewish  church,  generally  con¬ 
fined  to  them  in  fact:  But  the  right  was  not  ex¬ 
clusively  theirs.  With  what  propriety  then  is  preach¬ 
ing  denominated  a  function  of  the  priesthood. 

People  do  not  see  the  extent  of  this  parallel  be- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


25 


tween  the  Jewish  and  Christian  priesthood.  The 
Jewish  priest  was  born  such.  And  the  nature  of  his 
offices  rendered  this  a  wise  arrangement.  He  was 
educated  to  sacrifice,  offer  incense,  and  perform  other 
similar  duties.  Thus  it  was  also,  in  some  measure, 
under  the  preceding  infantile  dispensation.  If  the 
parallel  were  just,  as  it  is  attempted  to  be  drawn, 
sincere  piety  would  not  be  of  such  importance  with 
regard  to  the  Christian  priest  as  we  know  it  is. 

The  patriarchal  dispensation  anticipated  some 
parts  of  the  Jewish.  The  Jewish  anticipated  some 
parts  of  the  Christian.  The  synagogue  teachers  were 
neither,  born  such,  nor  such  merely  by  education  : — 
They  Were  pious  priests  or  laymen ; — laymen  in 
every  sense.  There  were  other  teachers  in  the  syna¬ 
gogue  beside  the  priests  of  the  temple.  There  were 
others  beside  the  sypagogue-rulers. 

Does  it  comport  with  sound  reason,  that  an  aged, 
pious,  and  sensible  man,  shall  not  instruct  without 
the  permission  (we  refer  now  to  two  kinds  of  license,) 
of  a  man,  perhaps  much  his  inferior  in  age,  piety, 
sense,  and  learning.  The  latter  holds  the  authority 
in  his  hands.  And  without  his  consent  it  is  Korah’s 
crime  for  the  other  to  say  to  thirty  persons  collected 
to  hear  him ,  u  Repent  and  be  converted.” 

He  must  wait,  while  they  are  perishing ,  for  this 
gentleman’s  decision ;  who  perhaps  is  employed 
about  other  matters  ;  about  business,  amusement,  or 
science ;  or  travelling  over  the  world  to  adjust  creeds ; 
or  hunting  for  heretics  in  his  study;  or  setting  the 
World  in  a  flame  about  trifling  disputes. 

Reason  is  a  precious  gift  of  God.  It  was  not  given 
in  vain.  How  are  we  to  believe,  without  proof,  that 
such  contradictions  proceed  from  God. 

You  must  be  clothed  with  human  authority  in  or¬ 
der  to  pluck  brands  from  the  burning.  You  may 
advise  three  men,  while  you  stand  on  the  same  ele¬ 
vation  with  themselves,  to  live  a  pious  life  ;  But  you 

c 


( 

\ 


26 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


4 

must  not  give  this  advice  to  thirty :  Or  if  to  thirty  not 
to  three  hundred.  Certainly  they  must  not  be  col¬ 
lected  to  hear  you. 

You  may  give  such  advice  to  a  small  collection  in 
a  lane  or  alley :  But  be  cautious  of  open  places.  You 
may  speak,  says  one,  sitting.  Says  another,  this  is 
more  magisterial  than  standing.  We  will  briefly 
examine  below,  whether  this  tissue  of  odd  things  be 
at  all  authorized  (as  is  asserted)  in  the  Scriptures. 

IV.  At  present  we  inquire  into  the  safety  of  the 
lay-teacher :  He  is  represented  as  liable  to  danger, 
from  which  a  license  would  guard  him ;  and  more 
likely  to  do  mischief,  than  if  an  u  ecclesiastical  act” 
had  occurred. 

The  lay-teacher  has  the  same  providential  assis¬ 
tance  as  others.  God  operates  by  means.  His  Spi¬ 
rit  does  not  inspire  fools  with  genius.  A  lay-teacher 
has  the  same  means  of  information.  If  he  has  the 
meanness  to  dress  himself  in  borrowed  plumes,  he 
has  the  same  access  to  the  compositions  of  other 
men.  And  if  he  wishes  to  improve  his  own  com¬ 
mon  sense,  he  has  the  means  in  the  most  valuable 
treatises  on  every  theological  subject. 

The  reader  will  please  to  recollect  that  it  is  our 
decided  sentiment, — that  for  which  we  contend, — 
that  neither  licensed  nor  unlicensed  men  are  called 
of  God  to  do,  what  He  has  not  given  them  talents  to 
perform.  But  though  both  are  often  very  defective 
on  some  subjects,  they  may  be  adequate  on  others. 

Every  man  ought  to  make  some  estimate  of  his 
own  abilities,  natural  and  acquired.  Every  man 
must  decide,  in  a  thousand  instances,  on  what  he  is 
capable  of,  or  act  foolishly.  For  the  piety,  humility, 
and  care,  exercised  in  making  this  decision,  he  is 
accountable  to  God.  Nor  let  a  man  suppose,  that 
the  decision  of  another  man  or  body  of  men,  that  an 
u  ecclesiastical  act,”  will  extenuate  his  folly,  in  occu¬ 
pying  a  place  for  which  he  was  never  designed. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


27 


We  have  said  that  a  man  is  accountable  to  God- 
alone  for  his  decision  with  regard  to  his  duty  to 
teach  what  he  thinks  truth ;  and  he  is  accountable  to 
God  alone  for  his  decision  what  truth  is.  .  Much  of 
the  alarm  respecting  lay-teaching  is  founded  on  the 
danger  of  error,  and  the  necessity  of  examination  of 
intended  teachers.  As  if  there  was  more  uniformity 
•  among  licensed,  than  among  unlicensed  men.  As  if 
creeds  were  not  the  fruitful  source  pf  the  most  per¬ 
nicious  errors,  as  well  as  the  most  unfair  conceal¬ 
ment,  and  other  detestable  vices. 

Centuries  have  passed  since  Cranmer  and  Serve- 
tus  were  burnt.  Catholics  and  protestants  have  been 
punished  for  not  being  silent.  The  same  things 
would  now  be  repeated,  if  the  diabolical  passions  of 
men  were  not  restrained  by  wholesome  laws.  A 
man  who  would  not  suffer  to  escape,  but  would  pur¬ 
sue  and  strip  of  his  ministerial  office  a  fellow  clergy¬ 
man,  who  would  honourably  avow  a  change  of  opi¬ 
nion,  according  to  the  command  of  Christ,  on  pain 
of  his  eternal  displeasure,  (there  is  danger,)  would, 
though  he  might  not  be  willing  to  suppose  so,  if  he 
had  the  power,  divest  him  further.  There  are  really 
good  men  who  might  act  thus  :  St.  Paul  says,  u  the 
w  law  is  not  made  for  the  righteous  man.”  His 
meaning  is  plain.  The  view  he  then  takes  of  it  is 
obvious.  He  tells  us  of  other  views  in  which  it  is 
necessary.  And  human  laws  are  necessary  for  amia¬ 
ble  men.  Neither  Calvin  nor  Cranmer  Were  cruel. 
Both  persecuted. 

We  do  not  say  that  Cranmer  and  Servetus  were 
equally  correct :  But  both  had  a  right  to  live  unmo¬ 
lested.  We  do  not  say  that  he  who  would  not  suffer 
one  who  differed  from  him 'in  opinion,  honourably  to 
retire  from  his  connexion,,  and  those  whom  he  de¬ 
nominates  heretics,  are  equally  correct.  But  they 
may  be  equally  pious  men:  And  they  are  all  ac¬ 
countable  to  God  alone.  We  believe  that  the  Word 


28 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


was  truly  and  properly  God.  But  we  pity  the  man 
(what  useless  suffering  does  he  endure  !)  who  feels 
any  disposition  to  injure  in  speech  or  action  his 
pious  brother  who  errs  on  this  subject.  To  excom¬ 
municate  or  insult  men  for  a  difference  of  opinion, 
even  on  an  important  subject,  is  insolent  and  wicked. 
It  never  convinces  others  :  But  the  temper  may  ruin 
ourselves.  The  opinion  that  it  is  lawful  to  indulge 
in  this  sin ,  is  a  soul-destroying  heresy.  We  wish 
calvinists  would  read  the  scriptural  sentiments  of 
Dr.  Doddridge  on  this  subject,  interspersed  through 
his  commentary,  especially  in  that  part  on  the  epis¬ 
tles  to  the  Corinthians.  If  any  good  man  think  it 
dangerous  to  believe  some  of  the  New  Testament 
canons,  let  him  read  this  human  authority. 

V.  A  lay-teacher  has  the  same  scriptures  as  other 
teachers.  Tell  us  not  of  some  unable  to  read  Greek. 
The  observation  applies  to  licensed,  as  well  as  unli¬ 
censed  men.  And  many  who  are  licensed,  under 
the  idea  of  being  acquainted  with  this  language, 
know  very  little  respecting  it.  We  admit  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  even  that  slight  knowledge  of  it  which  many 
possess.  They  can  better  understand  the  observa¬ 
tions  of  learned  men.  But  the  necessitv  of  the  know- 

J 

ledge  of  the  original  is  grounded  on  this  sentiment, 
that  a  man  does  not  really  read  the  Scriptures  who 
reads  them  in  translations. 

We  might  almost  as  well  assert,  that  in  order  to 
read  the  Scriptures  really ,  we  must  read  the  auto¬ 
graphs  of  each  book.  But  allowing  the  sentiment  to 
be  correct ; — does  any  thing  but  an  accurate  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  Greek,  such  as  very  few  (we  say  not  li¬ 
censed  but,)  presbyterian  clergymen  possess,  answer 
the  design? 

The  pretence  of  being  a  good  Greek  scholar  is 
safely  made.  Who  is  to  examine  ?  It  is  well  known 
that  the  license  of  a  presbytery  or  a  bishop  is^no  di¬ 
ploma.  Men  are  licensed  to  be  pastors,  while  not 


£9 


LAY-TEACHING. 

only  ignorant  of  Greek,  but  very  deficient  iii  English; 
and  really  unfit  to  be  teachers,  except  on  this  ground, 
that  being  good  men  they  will  do  good ;  and  the 
evil  feared  is  chiefly  imaginary. 

To  say  nothing  of  the  ordained  men  in  other 
lands,  who  cannot  read  translations,  (There  has  been 
however  an  “  ecclesiastical  act.”)  and  of  the  licensed 
men  in  our  own  country,  who  cannot  read  English 
correctly,  how  many  of  the  ordained  presbyterian 
pastors  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  could  read  a 
Greek  author  with  whom  they  were  not. familiar  ?  The 
Greek  Testament  is  easily  read :  But  this  is  not  to 
understand  the  language. 

Our  object  however  is  not  the  defective  knowledge 
of  licensed  ministers.  We  contend  they  are  learned 
enough.  This  defence  is  theirs.  The  means  of  teach¬ 
ing  exist.  There  are  excellent  translations  of  the 
holy  volume  for  the  use  of  ignorant  bishops  and  lay- 
teachers.  The  number  of  them  is  a  great  advantage, 
which  we  enjoy  as  Christians;  and  the  demonstration 
which  we  thus  have,  in  the  number  of  learned  and 
pious  witnesses,  of  their  general  correctness  is  a 
subject  of  most  devout  acknowledgment  to  ignorant 
teachers,  and  to  all  Christians. 

w  No  translation,”  says  Dr.  Campbell,  u  that  I 
“  know  has  missed  the  sense  in  points  of  principal 
“  consequence,  whether  historical  events,  articles  of 

u  faith,  or  rules  of  practice - any  of  the  almost  in- 

u finite  number  of  translations”  are  w  amply  sufficient 
u  for  the  all  the  great  purposes  of  religion  and  chris- 
u  tianity.” 

The  vulgate  would  answer  well-instructed  protes- 
tants ;  and  the  Socinian  translation  would  nourish 
the  piety  of  those  who  worship  Christ. 

Most  of  the  difficulties  which  God  has  been 
pleased  to  leave  in  the  Scriptures,  are  such  to  the 
learned  as  well  as  to  the  unlearned.  If  the  know- 

c  2 


\ 


30 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


ledge  of  the  original  languages  could  fully  remove 
them,  all  Christians  should  go  to  school  again. 

The  pretence  (and  it  is  one  of  the  most  powerful 
engines  of  attack  on  lay-teaching,)  that  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  original  languages  of  the  Bible  is  essen¬ 
tially  necessary  for  all  teachers,  is  contradictory.  If 
we  cannot  rely  on  the  existing  translations  of  men, 
tried  as  regards  learning  and  goodness,  how  shall  we 
rely  on  one,  of  whose  piety,  talent,  and  integrity,  we 
are  utterly  ignorant. 

You  tell  us  he  has  been  examined  by  an  ecclesias¬ 
tical  council.  If  our  common  translation  is  to  be 
improved,  the  fame  of  Campbell  or  Macknight 
would  be  more  satisfactory  to  us.  A  modern  license 
is  no  absolute  proof  either  of  capacity  or  learning. 
Ask  the  members  of  such  councils.  It  would  be 
hardly  proper  to  cite  modern  private  declarations. 
Hear  Gregory  Nazianzen,  as  quoted  by  Le  Clerc. 
44  I  always  avoid  any  assembly  of  bishops — without 
44  any  exaggeration,  the  spirit  of  dispute  and  ambi- 
44  tion  is  so  great  in  them,  that  it  cannot  be  ex- 
44  pressed.”  Again,  M  I  never  go  to  any  synod,  be- 
44  cause  there  is  nothing  to  be  heard  there  but  geese 
44  and  cranes,  who  fight  without  understanding  one 
44  another.”  The  evil  deplored  by  Gregory  we  con¬ 
sider  as  the  effect  of  these  unscriptural  institutions. 
The  men  were  generally  good  men.  Among  the 
implacable  enemies  of  lay-teaching  are  these  unholy 
things.  We  wish  to  be  understood  of  collections  of 
pastors  of  different ,  and  especially  distant  congrega¬ 
tions,  for  other  purposes  than  to  evangelize  the  un¬ 
believing  world. 

VI.  The  only  scriptural  ecclesiastical  council, 
possessing  the  powers  of  a  spiritual  court,  is  the  col¬ 
lege  of  pastors  of  one  congregation.  The  best  spe¬ 
cimen  now  existing,  known  to  us,  is  the  presbyterian 
session.  By  44  ruling  elder”  its  44  form  of  govern¬ 
ment,”  means  a  ruler  in  spiritual  affairs;  by  deacon 


LAY-TE  ACHING. 


31 


a  person  to  whom  is  committed  certain  temporal 
matters.  If  any  one  doubt  this,  just  let  him  read  ; 
Nothing  can  be  plainer.  However  if  we  are  wrong, 
we  are  not  ashamed  of  our  company.  We  are  sorry, 
notwithstanding,  for  the  trouble  which  the  mistake 
has  occasioned  during  centuries.  The  pious  Bishop 
Hall,  for  instance,  might  have  been  saved  much 
trouble,  in  addition  to  the  u  hard  measure,”  had  he 
only  known  that  he  was  contending  with  a  man  of 
straw.  Indeed  his  generous  heart  would  have  re¬ 
joiced,  in  such  ample  provision  being  made  for  the 
poor,  had  he  suspected  that  the  ruling  presbyters 
were  only  deacons.  Presbyterian  confessions  of  his 
day,  and  of  ours,  consider  them  as  lay -elders. 
They  are  then,  in  reality ,  lay-pastors,  or  lay-bishops. 
They  are  wonders  on  earth,  elders  forbidden  to  teach, 
governors  of  a  congregation  forbidden  to  instruct  it, 
bishops  who  must  not  speak  to  their  flock. 

If  any  votary  of  truth  wdshes  to  push  the  ruling 
elder  from  the  u  second  throne,”  or  to  open  his 
closed  lips,  (in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  solemn 
engagements  of  both  minister  and  elder,  when  each 
subscribed  the  confession,)  let  him  openly  demand 
an  alteration  in  the  plan  of  government.  And  let 
any  minister  be  cautious  how  he  uses  influence 
arising  from  his  fame  for  humble  piety,  to  reduce 
either  lay-bishops  or  deacons  below  trustees.  These 
might  answer  the  same  purpose  as  the  annual  elder  : 
But  unhappily  they  comprehend  a  variety  of  unbe¬ 
lievers  and  others,  such  as  shall  not  inherit  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God.  It  does  this  order ,  writh  whom  some 
clergymen  are  willing  to  divide  the  government  of 
their  congregation  as  regards  spiritual  affairs,  no 
injustice  to  say  this.  For  many  of  them  would  be 
hurt  at  the  idea  of  being  supposed  Christians.  Mes¬ 
siah  never  instituted  this  order  of  neutrals, — border¬ 
ers.  There  is  not  a  more  despicable  creature  than 
a  man  belonging  to  Satan’s  camp,  who  yet  cannot 


32 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


keep  his  hands  off  the  little  matters  of  those  pious 
men  whom  he  despises. 

If  the  lay-bishops  beside  the  highest  New  Testa¬ 
ment  characteristic  of  a  presbyter,  or  governor  in  the 
house  of  God,  which  they  possess  in  a  sense  peculiar 
to  themselves ,  had  in  charge  the  lower  (we  do  not 
say  less  important,)  offices  also,  particularly  that  of 
teaching,  the  session  were  a  New  Testament  presby¬ 
tery.  They  are  now,  in  many  respects,  just  what  in¬ 
spiration  intended  a  presbytery  to  be,  and  what  it 
was  in  the  ancient  church.  They  are  men  selected 
from  the  very  body  which  they  are  to  govern;  men 
to  whom  the  honour  and  salvation  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion  are  dear.  They  are  independent  of  the  people, 
yet  closely  united  to  them,  as  neighbours,  friends, 
and  fellow-christians ; — and  men.  of  some  age  and 
standing  in  that  congregation.  Their  authority  is 
real.  And  so  is  that  of  a  stranger-pastor,  after  suffi¬ 
cient  residence,  or  indeed  at  once  if  he  be  a  man  of 
well  known  character  in  the  church. 

We  admit  the  necessity,  under  present  circum¬ 
stances,  for  the  translation  of  bishops  and  other 
clergy.  At  least,  we  are  not  satisfied  that  we  would 
be  correct  in  objecting  to  it.  We  must  not  however 
reason  from  a  fact  wThich  did  not  exist  in  the  first 
ages,  and  which  never  ought  to  have  existed.  The 
moving  about  of  clergymen  (We  do  not  speak  of 
missionary  tours.)  leaves  an  impression  in  favour  of 
a  general  kind  of  superintendance  belonging  to  the 
local  pastors  over  the  church.  Now  when  Titus 
(an  extraordinary  but  not  a  local  bishop)  was  left  in 
Crete  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  is  it  supposable 
that  he  was  to  bring  them  from  other  parts  of  the 
world,  than  that  where  he  ordained  them. 

Down  as  late  as  the  fourth  century  the  church 
made  the  most  vigorous  opposition  to  translations  of 
clergy.  A  canon  of  the  council  of  Antioch,  in  M. 
Dupin, a  Forbids  clergymen  to  forsake  their  churches 


LAYVTEACHING. 


33 


41  to  abide  in  others.”  Another  44  Forbids  the  trans- 
44  lation  of  bishops.”  Another  u  Forbids  translation 
44  of  bishops  and  priests,  and  orders  that  those  who 
44  shall  be  translated  shall  return  to  their  first  church.” 
A  canon  of  the  council  of  Arles  44  Enjoins  ministers 
44  to  continue  in  the  church  where  they  were  or- 
44  dained.”  Another  44  Forbids  priests  and  deacons 
44  under  pain  of  deposition  to  relinquish  the  church 
44  where  they  were  fixed  by  their  ordination.”  A 
canon  of  the  council  of  Sardica  44  Calls  translation  of 
44  bishops  a  wicked  custom  and  pernicious  abuse.” 

It  was  discovered  in  the  council  of  Laodicea  that 
there  was  a  difference.  Some  were  44  for  the  good 
44  of  the  church.” 

44  A  qualification  in  a  bishop,  anciently,  very  much 
44  insisted  on,  wras,  that  he  should  be  one  ofi  the  clergy 
44  of  the  same  church  over  which  he  was  to  be  made 
44  bishop.”  Thus  Mr.  Bingham.  That  the  inferior 
clergy,  from  whom  the  bishop  was  chosen,  were  or¬ 
dained,  anciently,  in  and  for,  the  church,  to  which, 
before  ordination,  they  belonged,  will  not  be  ques¬ 
tioned.  44  Whosoever,”  says  Lord  King,  44  desired 
44  to  be  admitted  into  this  sacred  office,  he  first  pro- 
44  posed  himself  to  the  presbytery  of  the  parish 
44  xvliere  he  dwelled  and  was  to  be  ordained .”  He 
was  then  proposed  to  the  people,  who  of  course  knew 
him,  and  who  judged  of  his  fitness  for  the  ministry. 
44  In  the  ancient  church,”  says  Bingham,  44  there  was 
44  no  such  thing  as  a  vague  and  absolute  ordination.” 
Ordination,  not  for  a  particular  church,  was  void . 
44  The  laws  forbad  ordination  of  strangers  in  any 
44  church  to  wffiich  they  did  not  belong.”  A  few  ex¬ 
ceptions,  in  extraordinary  cases,  do  not  render  these 
general  facts  doubtful. 

As  we  wrould  naturally  suppose,  men  first  began 
to  ordain  more  presbyters  and  deacons  for  particular 
churches,  than  they  had  any  occasion  for.  They 
were  no  inconvenience  to  the  bishop  for  the  power 


34 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


was  now  his .  The  superfluous  presbyter  or  deacon 
was  considered  as  ready  (for  either  presbyter  or 
deacon  was  then  eligible)  for  any  bishopric  that  of¬ 
fered.  The  consequence  was  wandering  clergy,  or 
as  they  were  afterwards  called  vagabond  clerks. 

But  when  the  detestable  practice  of  ordaining  cler¬ 
gymen  without,  flocks  commenced,  the  church  was 
shocked  at  this  gross  departure  from  the  usages  of 
its  age  of  innocence.  It  did  not  declare  such  ordi¬ 
nations  irregular — it  declared  them  no  ordinations . 
They  certainly  were  a  mockery. 

Thus  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  in  the  early  ages 
of  the  church,  arose  out  of  the  congregation  which 
they  afterwards  ruled.  The  clergy  were  thus  as 
really  the  representatives  of  the  people ,  as  the  lay- 
elders  now  are. 

A  college  of  pastors  in  general,  thus  chosen  from 
the  people,  we  view  as  the  New  Testament  presby¬ 
tery,  and  the  only  ecclesiastical  court  authorized  by 
that  book.  But  because  we  deny  th£  authority  to 
expand  every  vile  scandal  from  the  primitive  presby¬ 
tery  and  congregation  where  it  ought  to  be  censured 
and  die,  to  the  general  council  of  (almost  all)  North 
America,  because  we  do  not  admit  the  unjust  claims 
of  associated  bishops ;  we  beg  not  to  be  supposed 
inimical  to  the  indulgence  of  pious  friendship.  We 
respectfully  suggest,  however,  that  it  is  a  great  way 
from  the  mouth  of  Columbia  river  to  Cape  May. 
Ought  these  largest  associations  to  be  so  frequent? 
And  when  pastors  do  leave  their  flocks  for  this 
purpose,  ought  not  their  tour  to  be  a  missionary 
one  ?  Would  it  sacrifice  a  little  more  time  and  money  ? 
It  would  then  sacrifice  none  of  either:  Especially  if 
they  requested  the  presbyters  at  home  as  exiled  Cy¬ 
prian  did  his,  u  to  discharge  their  own  and  his  office 
“  too.” 

Missionary  exertions  are  the  legitimate  and  pious 
object  of  these  associations.  In  this  sense  we  applaud 


LAY-TEACHING. 


35 


them,  and  admit  preachers  to  have  the  care  of  the 
world.  The  two  grand  systems,  of  local  pastors 
and  teachers, — and  of  evangelizing  associations, — of 
which  last  the  twelve  were  the  commencement, 
must  be  conceived  of,  as  distinct :  And  they  ought 
to  be  kept  more  distinct  than  they  are.  The  occa¬ 
sional  missionary  service  of  pastors  who  have  no 
taste  or  fitness  for  it,  is  really  a  waste  of  time  and 
means.  These  ought  to  remain  at  home.  Even  if 
they  have  business  at  the  metropolis ,  they  should  not 
obtrude  themselves  in  the  place  of  more  suitable 
men. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  insist  on  men  becoming 
local  bishops,  who,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  prefer 
itinerating,  shows  a  childish  attachment  to  theory. 
Both  systems  are  crushed  in  the  attempt  to  amalga¬ 
mate  them.  Providence  introduces,  what  our  ridi¬ 
culous  and  selfish  schemes  would  prevent.  The  do¬ 
mestic  itinerating  of  some  of  the  old  denominations 
is  a  mere  pretence.  Gentlemen  travelling  for  exer¬ 
cise  and  amusement  is  one  thing  :  There  is  another : 
God  has  raised  up  an  itinerating  denomination, 
without  whom  some  parts  of  our  country  would  be 
in  a  state  of  heathenism.  A  methodist  itinerant  is 
a  primitive  evangelist.  And  a  large  proportion  of 
the  presbyterian  preachers  are  nothing  else  than 
itinerant  teachers.  They  have  not  the  authority  of 
the  elder.  They  must  preach  as  the  lay-bishops  tell 
them,  and  they  sit  as  loose  to  their  congregations 
as  A  Presbyterian  supposes  the  ancient  presbyter 
did. 

The  disposition  to  be  every  thing,  in  each  indivi¬ 
dual,  is  what  ruins  every  thing.  The  pious  itine¬ 
rant  is  in  danger  of  envying  the  dignity  of  the  local 
bishop,  perhaps  a  more  humble  man  than  himself. 
He  is  in  danger  of  that  mean  sin, — calling  him  a 
hireling,  because  he  gets  perhaps  half  a  maintenance; 
— charging  him  with  caring  too  much  for  the  fleece, 


36 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


though,  if  he  depended  on  his  congregation,  he 
would  be  without  a  coat.  On  the  other  hand  some 
pastors  lay  a  spiritual  claim  to  a  piece  of  ground,  (we 
mean  literally,)  just  as  well  founded,  as  the  right  of 
certain  mendicants  to  particular  streets. 

We  refer  to  A  Presbyterian  whose  sermon  was 
reviewed  by  Dr.  J.  J.  J.  in  the  Presbyterian  Maga¬ 
zine  for  April,  1821.  We  do  not  assert  that  he  is 
the  same  with  u  A  Presbyterian.”  For  we  do  not 
know  it  with  certainty. 

In  truth  we  are  obliged  to  consider  them  the 
same  by  common  report.  We  shall  be  sorry  if  it 
be  supposed  wrong.  It.  would  be  more  convenient  to 
us  to  take  them  separately  :  But  justice  forbids  it. 
The  Thoughts  on  Lay -preaching,  render  the  former 
theories  more  rational.  Take  what  course  here  we 
might,  we  would  be  liable  to  censure.  The  amount 
of  our  error,  if  it  be  one,  is  this  :  We  ascribe  to  the 
avowed  author  of  three  tracts,  the  sermon,  and  two 
volumes  of  Letters  on  the  Ministry ,  another  piece 
better  written  than  either.  It  excels  in  shrewdness. 
We  have  not  disturbed  the  quiet  of  a  gentleman 
whose  modesty  hides  his  name. 

VII.  And,  with  regard  to  the  two  systems  men¬ 
tioned  above,  the  disposition  to  rule  every  thing,  is 
what  ruined  the  church,  as  far  as  man  could  dis¬ 
grace  and  destroy  it,  by  means  of  those  ecclesiastical 
courts,  which  we  consider  as  the  foes  of  lay-teaching, 
and  to  which  we  oppose  the  primitive  presbytery. 
Says  a  catholic  historian,  M.  Dupin,  u  We  do  not 
a  find  in  any  credible  authors,  that  any  councils 
u  were  held  to  condemn  the  first  heretics. — Every 
u  bishop  instructed  his  own  people  in  the  true  faith. — 
u  The  first  councils, — mentioned  in  antiquity,  are 
u  those  held  under  the  pontificate  of  pope  Victor.” 
The  reader  will  please  to  remember,  that  the  bishop 
of  the  two  first  centuries  was  the  bishop  of  one  con¬ 
gregation  :  x\nd  that  this  flaming  star  (u  a  man  of  a 


LAY-TE  ACHING. 


37 


<fc  furious  and  intemperate  spirit,1’)  appeared  to  dis¬ 
tress  our  unhappy  world,  especially  by  the  awful  pre¬ 
cedent  which  he  gave  it,  in  the  latter  end  of  the 
second  century.  We  have  no  doubt  there  were  be¬ 
fore  this  associations  of  the  clergy  for  pious  purposes. 

Will  it  be  said,  that  a  council  occurred  in  the 
apostolic  age  ?  Will  it  be  said,  that  as  many  of  the 
multitude  or  brethren,  of  one  church,  as  chose  to 
lattend  with  the  elders  of  it,  adding  their  assent  to 
the  decrees  of  inspiration ,  answered  the  inquiry  of 
some  foreign  Christians,  and  that  this  association  of 
Christians,  including  elders,  and  inspired  apostles, 
was  a  council ;  and  that  if  they  possessed  the  right 
to  decree  in  answer  to  questions  of  faith  and  morals, 
so  do  councils  since  ?  We  know  not  what  to  reply  to 
such  a  claim  made  by  men  not  also  claiming  inspira¬ 
tion.  A  man,  who,  like  a  celebrated  modern  friend, 
claimed  inspiration,  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  discri¬ 
minate  between  such  portions  of  Scripture,  as  ought 
to  be  retained,  and  such  as  ought  to  be  rejected,  and 
of  course  would  claim  infallibility  for  all  councils 
composed  of  such  materials  as  himself,  would  be 
entitled  to  a  graver  answer. 

The  very  assumption  of  councils,  (councils,  which 
the  partial  attendance  of  laymen  renders  completely 
clerical,  and  where  a  lay  minority  lose  their  inde¬ 
pendence,)  of  a  right  to  decide  what  men  are  to  be¬ 
lieve,  renders  the  difficulties  with  regard  to  a  correct 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  greater  to  a  licensed  man 
than  to  others.  The  first  has  subscribed  a  creed, 
comprehending  a  vast  number  of  articles,  almost  im¬ 
possible  to  be  recollected.  If  a  presbyterian,  espe¬ 
cially,  for  his  is  long  and  manifold,  will  take  up  his 
creed,  and  read  it  over,  he  will  find  it  contains  a 
multitude  of  points,  which  perhaps  he  never  thought 
of  till  the  last  reading. 

It  is  a  distressing  pity  that  men  ever  adopted  a 
system  so  cruel,  and  so  hostile  to  truth  and  goodness, 

D 

V 


58 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


as  to  decide  on  so  many  subjects,  and  then  demand  the 
assent  of  every  officer  of  a  large  body  of  Christians. 
u  No  presbytery,”  says  Dr.  J.  J.  J.  “  has  power  to 
u  alter  a  zvord — to  accommodate  it  to  the  scruples  of 
u  any  candidate.”  Minister ,  elder  and  deacon  must 
thus  subscribe. 

The  most  amazing  stickler  for  subscription  we  ever 
heard  of,  for  a  while  demanded  of  every  communicant 
in  his  congregation,  subscription  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  in  toto.  We  do  not  deny  that  this  was  consistent. 
When  he  found  it  unattainable  among  pious  lay  peo¬ 
ple,  he  substituted  a  declaration,  that  the  party  did 
not  object  to  the  book.  They  did  not  object.  They  had 
not  generally  read  it.  This  gentleman  declared  that, 
though,  while  it  was  the  confession  of  the  church,  it 
must  be  subscribed,  he  wished  it  consisted  of  fewer 
articles . 

Now  a  lay-teacher  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  believe 
the  truth:  But,  in  every  research  for  truth,  the  licen- 
ciate  meets  this  terrible  object,  the  creed.  Terrible 
it  must  be  to  every  conscientious  man.  He  must  be 
in  dread  for  his  character  and  salary.  And  a  good 
man  is  not  obliged  to  be  indifferent  respecting  the 
subsistence  of  his  family.  If  he  changes  his  opinion, 
he  is  obliged  to  avow  it  to  the  body,  who  received  his 
subscription. 

We  all  regret  (It  is  painful  to  us.)  the  want  of  re¬ 
spect,  in  a  portion  of  the  world,  for  ecclesiastical 
rulers.  But  it  is  for  their  spiritual  tyranny,  as  well 
as  for  their  just  authority.  The  permission  of  Pro¬ 
vidence  may  be,  on  the  whole ,  a  blessing.  Tyranni¬ 
cal  men,  even  among  us,  can  inflict  real  pains  for 
changes  of  opinion.  They  cannot  touch  an  unbe¬ 
liever.  He  renounces  their  authority  or  dissembles. 
But  they  can  render  a  pious  man  an  object  of  exe¬ 
cration  to  some  he  loves.  The  punishment  is  just 
for  immoralities.  And  continuing'  to  profess  a  creed 
not  really  believed,  is  most  immoral.  What  we  de- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


39 


nominate  cruel,  and  unchristian,  is  the  determination 
to  punish,  by  deposition,  a  man  who  wishes  to  act 
as  a  Christian,  to  avow  his  change  of  sentiment,  after 
ideliberation,  and  retire. 

We  admit  the  existence  of  creeds,  before  and  from 
the  days  of  Philip.  Every  church  has  a  right  to 

(nquire  what  are  the  sentiments  of  an  intended  com- 
nunicant,  teacher,  or  pastor.  But  the  confession 
demanded  of  the  Ethiopian  was  short.  It  could  not 
jt  mistaken,  and  there  would  have  been  no  penalty 
In  case  of  error.  In  the  pure  ages  of  the  church, 
creeds  were  short. 

W e  do  not  deny  the  reasonableness  of  any  Chris¬ 
tian  association  telling  a  member  or  applicant,  u  You 
p  had  better  connect  yourself  with  others  of  con- 
j4  genial  sentiments.”  But  who  will  say  that  this  is  the 
•same  with  excommunication.  The  excommunica¬ 
tion  of  pope  Victor ,  mentioned  above,  was  not  the 
same  with  excommunication  now.  It  was  onlv  an 
uncharitable  refusal  to  join  in  communion  with  the 
bishop  said  to  be  excommunicated.  It  did  not  strip 
him  of  his  episcopal  authority  in  his  congregation. 
But  even  Victor’s  was  something  different  from  that 
act  which  the  New  Testament  permits  to  uninspired 
men.  We  do  not  speak  now  of  exclusion  of  a  mem¬ 
ber,  (whether  clergyman  or  layman,)  from  the  com¬ 
munion  of  a  congregation  for  crime . 

The  question  of  the  right  of  councils  to  separate 
a  pastor  from  his  charge  against  the  will  of  both  is 
one  of  some  difficulty.  Any  number  of  gentlemen 
have  no  such  authority,  from  the  Scriptures,  over 
other  gentlemen.  The  claim  is  unpolite  and  inso¬ 
lent  as  well  as  impious  and  erroneous.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  the  minister  has  pledged  himself,  (and 
continued  his  pledge  up  to  the  moment  of  it,)  to 
submit  to  such  a  decree,  and  the  ecclesiastical  act  is 
the  consequence  of  violating  his  voluntary  engage¬ 
ment. 


40 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


Is  there  a  man  who  believes,  that  any  two  officers 
of  a  certain  large  body  of  Christians  think  alike  on 
all  the  articles  of  its  creed.  Is  there  one  who  thinks 
on  all  points  exactly,  (if  in  truth  he  thinks  at  all,)  as 
the  book  decides  ?  Do  they  promise  to  teach  what 
it  contains,  because ,  or,  as  far  as  truth. 

VIII.  The  lay-teacher  has  the  same  promise  of 
peculiar  assistance  as  the  clerical.  He  has  the  as¬ 
surance  of  whatever  aid  is  peculiar  to  the  servants 
of  God  in  extending  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel. 
When  our  Lord  said  to  the  eleven,  Lo  I  am  with 
you  always;  whom  he  included  with  them,  as  their 
assistants  and  successors,  we  must  learn  from  other 
passages  of  the  Scriptures. 

Stephen  and  Philip  w*ere  neither  licensed  nor  or¬ 
dained  to  teach .  To  assume  that  they  were,  is  to 
beg  the  question  most  unfairly  and  pitifully.  To  say 
that  their  teaching  was  approved  by  the  apostles,  is 
to  say  nothing  to  the  purpose.  They  now  approve 
by  their  writings  many  a  man  whom  synods  would 
condemn.  Did  Stephen  or  Philip,  before  teaching, 
ask  and  obtain  a  license  ?  To  assert  that  they  did, 
that  they  must  have  done  it,  is  really  trifling  with  the 
consciences  of  men.  The  same  kind  of  answer  might 
be  made  to  almost  any  example,  that  could  have  re¬ 
mained  on  record  in  the  Scriptures. 

Stephen  and  Philip  were  ordained  to  an  office  re¬ 
garding  merely  the  charities  of  the  church,  and  no¬ 
thing  else.  They  taught,  because  any  gifted  man  of 
that  day  might  do  so,  as  we  shall  presently  shew. 
If  Stephen  was  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom 
it  was  when  he  was  among  the  brethren ,  and  before 
his  admission  to  the  diaconate,  as  well  as  after. 

Our  object  in  introducing  them  now  is  to  assert 
the  divine  approbation  of  their  teaching  by  the  pecu¬ 
liar  assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  apostles  themselves,  inspired  as  they  were,  did 
not  claim  the  exclusive  privileges  now  claimed  by 


LAY-TEACHING, 


41 


some  clergymen.  Inspired  men  did  not  reject  the 
aid  of  uninspired  and  unlicensed  brethren.  When 
applied  to  for  the  decision  of  a  particular  question  of 
morals,  the  answer  was  returned  by  the  apostles , 
elders ,  and  brethren.  These  brethren  were  as  many 
of  the  whole  church,  or  multitude,  as  chose  to  at¬ 
tend,  as  is  evident  on  the  reading  of  the  narrative. 

“  Paul — and  all  the  brethren  which  are  with  me  to 
“  the  churches  of  Galatia,”  is  language  that  would 
be  willingly  dashed  from  the  Scriptures  by  many  a 
one  now  possessed  of  but  a  small  share  of  this  great 
man’s  natural  advantages. 

This  association  does  not  in  our  view  militate  at 
all  against  Paul’s  inspiration.  The  assent  of  the  bre¬ 
thren  did  not  render  his  doctrine  less  certain.  We 
are  aware  that  brethren  is  supposed,  sometimes,  to 
mean  teachers .  It  is  not  surprising  if  it  does  when 
any  brother  might  teach.  But  the  argument  that  a 
man  was  an  approved  teacher,  because  he  is  called  a 
brother  among  the  first  Christians,  is  rather  flimsy. 
We  readily  admit  that  the  brethren  which  were  zuith 
Paul,  when  he  wrote  to  the  Philippians,  were  his 
companions  who  travelled  with  him  and  taught  more 
or  less,  and  that  the  saints  where  he  and  his  com¬ 
panions  then  resided  were  the  Christians  of  the  place. 
But  does  all  this  prove  brethren  a  name  of  office  ? 
We  cannot  even  be  certain  of  this,  that  all  the  bre¬ 
thren  with  Paul,  when  he  wrote  to  the  Galatians, 
were  accustomed  to  teach ;  though  it  is  probable 
they  were;  because,  to  teach  was  then  the  right, -and 
generally  the  duty,  of  all  Christians.  Mark  this  pas¬ 
sage  of  the  xv.  chap,  of  the  Acts .  w  It  pleased  the 
u  apostles  and  elders,  with  the  zvhole  churchy  to  send 
u  chosen  men — namely,  Judas,  &c. — chief  men  among 
“  the  brethren ,  and  they  wrote  after  this  manner  : 
u  The  apostles,  elders,  brethren,”  &c.  The  brethren 
here  are  the  whole  church. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  because  the  effusions  of  ig- 

d  2 


42 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


norance  by  ordained  and  lay-teachers  are  often  im¬ 
puted  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  we  are  the  advocates 
of  ignorance.  The  lay-teacher  may  expect  divine 
aid ;  but  ignorance  does  not  follow  from  lay-teach¬ 
ing.  Will  it  be  pretended  that  there  are  more 
u  vain,”  “  arrogant,”  u  enthusiastic,”  and  u  superfi¬ 
cial”  persons  in  proportion  among  lay-teachers,  than 
among  those  regularly  licensed  by  the  different  de¬ 
nominations  ?  Where  especially  are  sciolists  to  be 
found?  Where  do  you  hear  men  meddling  with  sub¬ 
jects  of  which  they  are  perfectly  ignorant?  The  lay¬ 
man  of  the  presbyterian  church  generally  confines 
himself  to  w^hat  he  understands.  It  distresses  us  to 
hear  the  gospel  ignorantly  preached.  And  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  extent  it  is  an  innocent  regret ;  but  pride  in¬ 
sinuates  with  it. 

If  it  were  in  our  power  we  would  have  more 
learned,  ordained  as  well  as  lay-teachers.  It  would 
delight  us  to  see  comfortable  livings  for  learned  doc¬ 
tors  who  only  wrote.  We  would  have  many  really 
learned  men,  such  as  are  rather  scarce  at  present. 

W  e  w'ould  have  all  teachers ,  if  possible ,  masters  of 
their  own  profession,  though  they  might  not  be  ma¬ 
thematicians  or  lawyers.  We  w'ould  not  allow  a 
student  of  divinity  to  leave  a  theological  seminary 
ignorant  of  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  two  first 
centuries.  A  knowledge  of  the  circle  of  the  sciences 
is  useful ;  but  that  it  is  necessary  for  a  clergyman  is 
a  perniciops  sentiment;  pernicious,  because  they  are 
therefore  ignorant  of  what  they  ought  to  know. 

We  would  hinder  no  unlearned  man,  willing  to 
teach,  to  do  all  the  good  he  could.  He  may  not  be 
so  able  to  M  distinguish  and  guard,”  as  some  good 
men  conceive  necessary  :  So  much  the  better.  The 
plain  and  simple  system  of  Christianity  has  been  dis¬ 
tinguished  and  guarded,  till  the  mistaken  notion  really 
exists,  that  a  man  cannot  learn  true  religion,  from 
the  very  book  given  to  teach  it  to  the  ignorant. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


43 


And  we  would  dissuade  no  pious  man  of  good 
sense  from  being  the  bishop  of  a  congregation,  who 
were  willing  to  be  governed  and  taught  by  him. 
There  are  respectable  and  valuable  pastors  who  are 
not  learned  in  the  presbyterian  sense. 

The  unlearned  pastor  or  unlicensed  doctor  may 
do  harm,  so  may  licensed  and  learned  men.  Whence 
arises  most  error  ?  That  much  error  exists  each  de¬ 
nomination  contends,  however  they  may  differ  as  re¬ 
spects  what  it  is  ;  but  does  what  each  considers  error 
arise  in  the  greatest  degree  from  licensed  or  un¬ 
licensed  men  ? 

W7hen  we  hear  learned  clerks  discussing  the  ques¬ 
tion  whether  there  were  doctors  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  church,  we  often  wonder  they  do  not  laugh  in 
each  others’  faces.  A  Christian  who  is  better  ac¬ 
quainted  with  his  Bible  than  other  books,  is  asto¬ 
nished  at  the  subject.  He  never  saw  in  that  book  any 
thing  like  theological  doctors !  He  never  once  sus¬ 
pects  that  people  mean  such  persons  as  the  teachers 
of  the  Corinthian  church;  some  of  them,  perhaps, 
gentlemen  of  fortune,  and  others,  such  honest  me¬ 
chanics  as  we  shall  see  Celsus  below  ridiculing. 

IX.  To  prove  that  under  the  ancient  dispensation 
teaching  was  not,  like  offering  sacrifice  and  incense, 
and  other  priestly  and  defined  acts,  restricted  to  the 
priests  and  levites,  but  was  open  to  all,  it  would  be 
sufficient  to  adduce  the  fact,  that  Jehoshaphat  sent 
princes ,  as  well  as  priests  and  levites,  to  teach  in  the 
cities  of  Judah. 

At  Antioch  “  Paul  and  his  company — went  into  the 
u  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day  and  sat  down.  And, 
“  after  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets,  the 
“  rulers  of  the  synagogue  sent  unto  them,  saying,  Ye 
u  men  and  brethren,  if  ye  have  any  word  of  exhorta- 
i(  tion  for  the  people,  say  on.”  Here ,  before  every 
Christian,  is  the  practice  of  the  Jewish  church.  It 
cannot  be  explained  away.  Paul  and  his  co?npany 


44 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


were  laymen,  to  the  rulers  of  the  Jewish  synagogue. 
w  A  Presbyterian”  could  not  decently  overlook  the 
well  known  fact  of  lay-preaching  in  the  synagogue 
and  church.  The  practice  of  the  Jewish  and  of  the 
New  Testament  Christian  church  was  precisely  what 
he  condemns.  44  It  may  not  be  improper  to  state,” 
says  he.  It  must  be  stated.  44  Sitting  by,” — u  Ready 
44  to  correct,”  says  he.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  chief 
ruler  to  sit  in  his  proper  place,  and  hear  with  re¬ 
verence  the  word  of  God,  whoever,  with  his  per¬ 
mission,  announced  it.  Sundry  ruffians  on  the  next 
Sabbath  day,  44  sitting  by,”  44  corrected,”  and  con¬ 
tradicted  the  apostle  and  blasphemed.  And  some 
of  the  same  kind  at  Thessalonica  endeavoured  to 
correct  him  in  the  same  way.  By  means  of  worth¬ 
less  instruments  they  made  an  uproar.  And  when 
they  heard  that'  Paul  was  teaching  what  he  believed 
to  be  truth  at  Berea,  they  pursued  him  and  stirred 
up  the  people  there. 

But  that  it  was  the  dutv  of  the  chief  ruler  or  his 

* 

co-presbyters  to  behave  in  an  ungentlemanly  manner 
requires  some  proof.  No  facts  that  wear  this  aspect 
are  found  in  Luke  iv.  or  Acts  xiii.  The  friendly  invi¬ 
tation  of  the  rulers  to  the  laymen  to  preach  was  evi¬ 
dently  the  approved  practice  of  the  Jewish  church. 
It  does  not  appear  that  a  word  was  said  in  reply  to 
Paul  on  the  first  Sabbath.  There  was  no  doubt,  hesi¬ 
tation,  or  difficulty,  on  any  occasion  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament. 

It  appears  to  us  most  hazardous  to  say  that  be¬ 
cause  in  an  age  of  greater  ignorance  there  were  elders 
in  the  synagogue  not  allowed  to  teach,  chat  the  apos¬ 
tles  in  selecting  from ,  and  adding  to  the  synagogue 
arrangements,  under  a  dispensation  of  light,  must 
have  transferred  this  rule  also  to  the  church. 

But  this  is  saying  nothing.  What  proof  is  there 
that  there  were  any  mute  Jewish  elders?  Some  of 
them  were  probably  not  capable  and  not  expected  t© 


LAY-TEACHING. 


45 


teach — not  preachers.  But  that  they  were  ordained 
not  to  teach ,  that  is,  having  no  right  to  teach,  we  deny. 
They  were  rulers.  But,  that  they  had  no  right  to  teach, 
is  plainly  disproved  by  the  New  Testament.  Old  and 
young, members  and  strangers,  might  all  teach  accord¬ 
ing  to  this  book.  It  was  not  requisite  that  the  teacher 
should  either  be  a  priest  or  synagogue-ruler.  The 
rulers  of  course  were  eligible.  Lay-teachers,  and  lay- 
elders  are  irreconcilable. 

That  the  synagogue  was  careful  to  have  at  least 
one  elder  able  to  labour  in  word  and  doctrine,  is 
something  totally  different  from  this,  that  others  were 
prohibited.' 

It  must  be  strong  evidence  that  wrill  remove  the 
fact  proved  from  other  sources,  and  decided  by  the 
Scriptures,  that  any  layman  might  teach.  And  this 
being  certain,  it  must  be  powerful  proof,  and  of  an 
age  before  that  of  Hilary,  that  will  convince  any 
rational  man  that  the  only  persons  in  the  synagogue 
prohibited  were  some  of  its  presbyters. 

Bishop  Stillingfleet  thus  quotes  from  Philo,  (of 
the  apostolic  age,)  w  Coming  to  their  holy  places, 
44  called  synagogues,  they  sit  down  in  convenient  or- 
44  der,  according  to  their  several  forms,  ready  to  hear, 
44  the  young  under  the  elder ;  then  one  taketh  the 
44  book,  and  readeth ;  another,  of  those  best  skilled , 
44  comes  after,  and  expounds  it.”  The  reader  will 
notice  how  fully  this  coincides  with  the  information 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  of  Hilary  below.  It  proves 
that  the  preachers  were,  in  general,  those  best  skilled 
in  that  synagogue.  Here  w^as  the  difference  between 
what  is  affirmed  to  have  been  the  lay  and  the  teaching 
elder.  The  latter  could,  the  other  might,  but  could 
not  teach. 

But  modern  opinion  goes  far  wTith  some  men.  We 
give  that  of  a  man  recommended  by  A  Presbyterian , 
and  certainly  very  capable  of  determining.  He  ad¬ 
mits  nearly  as  much  as  the  New  Testament  proves 


46 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


beyond  all  question .  Says  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  u  It 
44  seems  not  evident  that  there  was  any  set-officers  in 
44  the  Jewish  church  for  expounding  Scriptures  in 
44  all  synagogues,  or  at  least  not  so  fixed  but  that  any 
44  one  that  enjoyed  any  repute  for  religion  or  know- 
44  ledge  in  the  law  was  allowed  a  free  liberty  of 
44  speaking  for  the  instruction  of  the  people.” 

He  then  goes  on  to  state  a  fact  which  we  learn  with 
great  certainty  from  the  New  Testament.  It  speaks 
of  the  rulers,  chief  rulers,  and  chief  ruler  of  a  syna¬ 
gogue.  And  he  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  this  chief 
ruler  was  merely  first  among  equals .  This  is  very 
plain  from  the  narrative  in  Acts  xiii.  44  The  rulers  of 
*4  the  synagogue  sent,”  &c. 

Says  Mr.  Prideaux,  44  There  were  in  every  syna- 
‘‘  goguesome  fixed  members — admitted  by  imposition 
u  of  hands. — The  first  were  the  elders  who  governed 
44  all  the  affairs  of  it,  and  directed  all  the  duties  of 
44  religion  to  be  performed.  Next  to  them,  or  per- 
44  chance  one  of  them ,  was  the  minister  that  officiated 
44  in  offering  up  the  public  prayers — the  angel — of  the 
u  synagogue. — He  was  the  ordinary  minister.  But 
44  often  others  were  extraordinarily  called  out  for  the 
44  discharging  of  it,  providing  by  age,  gravity,  skill 
44  and  piety, — qualified. — Whoever  was  thus  appointed 
44  — was — the  angel  of  the  congregationybr  that  time. — 
44  Next  were  the  deacons.  They  stood  by  and  over- 
44  looked  those  that  did  read  the  lessons  out  of  the 
44  law  and  the  prophets,  and  set  them  right  when  they 
44  did  read  amiss. — The  rulers  of  the  synagogue — 
44  called  on  any  member.” 

Here  is  the  account  of  a  modern.  He  is  the  more 
entitled  to  credit  because  he  does  not  contradict  the 
Bible. 

The  reader  will  see  by  this  candid  statement  of  a 
respectable  writer,  confirmed  by  the  Scriptures ,  that 
these  elders,  whom  A  Presbyterian  supposes  laymen, 
were  ordained  by  imposition  of  hands,  and  were  the 


LAY-TEACHING.  At 

highest  rulers :  That  if  one  or  more  of  these  rulers 
were  capable  of  the  duty  and  willing  to  fulfil  it,  they 
sought  no  further:  They  led  the  devotions  :  That 
any  other  whom  they  judged  capable,  was  appointed 
by  them  the  angel  of  the  synagogue,  ordinarily  or 
occasionally.  And  that  it  was  the  deacon  who  over¬ 
looked  (that  is,  assisted)  the  (perhaps  ignorant)  rea¬ 
der.  This  was  any  member — one  of  the  ncvissimi — 
one  of  the  meanest.  The  honour  of  the  ministry 
was  not  then  imagined  to  be  maintained  by  disobedience 
to  God,  but  by  the  very  reverse,  a  holy  life.  If  God 
has  directed  the  novissimi  not  to  be  hindered  from 
speaking,  is  it  obedience  or  disobedience  to  despise 
them  ? 

“The  presidents  invite  those  to  speak  in  the  syna- 
“  gogue  whom  they  think  capable  of  it,”  says  Cal- 
met.  But  he  proves  it  from  the  evangelists  ! 

Our  reviewer  mentioned  above  informs  us,  that 
his  author  had  “  shown  that  the  synagogue  had 
“  ruling  or  lay  elders.”  It  surprised  us  that  the  re¬ 
viewer  did  not  favour  the  reader  with  the  proofs. 
But  we  were  more  astonished  to  discover,  on  exami¬ 
nation,  that  it  had  not  been  shown  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  reader  would  understand  it.  This  is  very  blame- 
able  carelessness. 

Caution  should  be  used  in  such  assertions.  The 
consequence  of  mistakes  like  this  is  to  injure  the 
credit  of  references.  Unquestionably  the  reviewer 
thought  he  was  justified  in  the  statement.  But  it  is 
as  certain  that  his  reader  would  understand  him,  that 
the  fact  was  shown  by  proofs  consisting  of  citations 
from  the  Scriptures  or  some  early  writer. 

There  is  nothing  in  that  part  of  the  sermon  but 
assertion  after  assertion  without  any  proof.  A  Pres¬ 
byterian's  information  that  accurate  writers  inform 
us — that  the  facts  are  unquestionable — that  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  lay-elders  in  the  synagogue  is  well  established 
and  fully  acknoivledged — that  these  facts  are  so  un - 


/ 


48 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


questionable  that  the  formal  establishment  of  them  by 
citing  authorities  is  altogether  unnecessary ,  is  no 
proof.  The  opinion  of  modern  gentlemen  is  no  such 
proof  as  the  statement  above  would  lead  us  to  expect: 
We  doubt  whether  he  had  a  single  authority  to  cite. 
We  do  not  say  he  had  not :  We  are  certain  he  sup¬ 
posed  he  had  :  But  we  demand  of  the  Christian  rea¬ 
der,  as  a  rational  man,  to  be  assured  he  had  not,  till 
it  be  done. 

Philo,  as  quoted  above,  and  Hilary  below,  prove, 
and  the  New  Testament  proves,  that  there  were  no 
mutes  in  the  synagogue.  This  proves  that  there  were 
no  mute  elders. 

Let  A  Presbyterian ,  instead  of  all  this  dogmatism, 
give  us  one  quotation  from  an  authentic  writer  of 
equal  or  nearly  equal  antiquity  with  the  evangelists, 
showing  that  there  were  mute  elders.  And  in  order 
to  save  him  trouble,  we  now  tell  him  what  we  do  not 
consider  as  proof.  There  is  no  proof  of  a  mute  elder 
in  the  inability  of  the  officers  of  the  church — in  the 
fact  that  there  were  presbyters  who,  when  ordained, 
were  known  not  to  possess  the  talents  or  information 
necessary  for  teachers — who  were  not  expected  to 
preach.  When  we  say  now  of  presbyterian  elders 
ordained  not  to  teach ,  we  mean  having  no  right.  You 
might  as  well  say  that  because  some  Jewish  and 
Christian  elders  w^ere  wicked  men,  they  were  ordain¬ 
ed  to  crime,  as  that,  because  some  Jewish  elders 
were  in  fact  not  teachers,  they  were  ordained  to  si¬ 
lence.  The  notion  of  an  elder  having  no  right  is  an 
unnatural  conception,  and  requires  the  plainest  proof. 
That  certain  Jewish  elders  were  not  capable  of  teach¬ 
ing,  and  that  they  had  no  right  to  teach,  are  two 
things  as  opposite  as  the  poles. 

We  have  not  given  the  decisions  of  Calmet  and 
Prideaux  above,  as  if  their  mere  opinion  proved 
much.  But  as  the  reader  may  not  have  time  or  in¬ 
clination  to  pursue  the  inquiry  for  himself,  we  have, 


I 


LAY-TEACHING.  49 

without  deciding  how  far  the  declarations  of  men 
who  have  done  this  ought  to  weigh  with  him,  given 
him  their  words  as  to  a  matter  of  fact. 

Where  we  give  any  marts  opinion ,  we  wish  the 
reader  to  consider  it  only  as  such.  The  sentiments 
of  eminent  men  are  a  species  of  proof :  But  it  is  sub¬ 
ject  to  many  44  distinctions  and  guards.”  The  opi¬ 
nion  of  Philo  outweighs  a  thousand  modern  opinions 
as  to  the  practice  of  the  synagogue.  The  opinion  of 
Huss  and  Jerome  on  church  government  is  far  more 
valuable  than  that  of  a  host  of  men  a  century  after, 
(however  respectable,  yet)  employed  in  accommodat¬ 
ing,  as  far  as  conscience  would  permit,  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  wishes  of  corrupt 
courts  and  established  prejudices.  The  opinion  of  a 
standard  writer  is  of  more  authority  than  that  of 
many  men  who  are  not  such. 

After  these  general  observations  we  adduce  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Doddridge. 

“  It  is — a  very  fruitless  attempt,  which  many  learned 
44  men  have  made,  to  ascertain  the  conditions  on  which 
44  persons  were  admitted  to  teach  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
44  gogue.  It  seems  evident  from  Maimonides  and 
“the  Talmud,  that  after  public  worship  was  over, 
u  any  one  might  make  a  speech  to  the  people  on  any 
44  subject.”  Again  :  44  Any  man  of  gravity  and  re- 
44  putation  might,  at  the  request  of  the  ruler,  offi- 
44  date.”  Says  Mr.  Cruden,  44  These  rulers  likewise 
44  taught  the -people — by  way  of  conference — or — 
u  by — sermons.”  Says  Jahn’s  Biblical  Archaeology, 
44  Those  who  held  some  office  in  the  church  were  the 
46  regularly  qualified  instructers  in  these  religious 
44  meetings,  and  yet  laymen  had  liberty  to  address 
44  their  brethren  on  these  occasions  the  same  as  in  the 
44  synagogues .” 

Knowing  well  that  laymen  preached  in  the  ancient 
Christian  church — 44 1  am  also  inclined  to  think,”  says 

'  E 


50 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  A  Presbyterian.”  What  is  the  gentleman  now  in¬ 
clining  to  ?  A  mute  elder  again  ? 

He  sees  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church  an  elder 
on  whom  silence  is  imposed,  requested  to  speak. 
The  facts  inclining  him  we  shall  see  presently.  We 
are  sorry  if  we  have  mistaken  this  gentleman.  Does 
he  mean  by  ruling  elder ,  (such  they  were  assuredly. 
But  does  he  design  to  be  understood)  a  teachmg 
elder?  \W e  declare  we  understand  him  to  mean  the 
mute  elder.  To  A  Presbyterian ,  in  the  above-men¬ 
tioned  sermon,  it  would  be  easy  u  to  produce  passages 
w  from  the  fathers”  to  prove  the  existence  of  “ruling” 
(he  means  lay)  elders,  in  the  first  ages.  So  his  re¬ 
viewer  says,  “  he  tells  us.”  And,  “  what  is  more,” 
he  would  have  done  it.-  But  here  a  danger  presented 
itself.  u  It  would  have  carried  the  preacher  far  be- 
M  yond  the  limits  prescribed.”  Where  it  would  have 
carried  him  it  is  hard  to  tell.  For  in  what  part  of 
the  civilized  world  such  a  strange  and  unnatural 
sight  as  a  mute  elder  existed  during  the  three  first 
centuries,  we  have  never  heard.  The  preacher  w?ould 
have  been  travelling  yet. 

That  some  presbyters  in  the  church,  as  well  as 
some  bishops ,  did  not  in  fact  preach,  no  one  doubts. 
That  in  some  congregations  the  office  of  preaching 
might  have  been  very  much  engrossed  by  the  bishop, 
is  not  questioned.  But  w'ere  there  any  ruling  pres¬ 
byters  in  the  three  first  centuries  who  had  no  right  to 
teach — whose  order  excluded  it  ? 

A  Presbyterian  had  not  time  to  give  us  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  three  first  ages,  which  has  confessedly* 
great  weight  in  such  questions,  for  obvious  reasons. 
And  yet  he  had  time  to  give  us  the  opmions  of  emi¬ 
nent  men  since  the  reformation .  But  these  prove  no¬ 
thing.  Great  and  good  men  are  of  the  opposite  sen¬ 
timent.  In  each  case  we  know  on  w  hat  their  opinion 
is  founded,  and  can  judge  of  its  correctness.  In  the 
different  protestant  churches  too,  there  are  very  vari- 


LAY-TEACHING* 


51 


'jus  opinions  on  the  subject.  The  first  Scotch  elders 
were  forbidden  to  be  appointed  for  more  than  one 
year.  Men  do  not  mean  the  same  thing  at  all  by  lay- 
elder.  Some  pious  men  consider  it  an  office  of  ex¬ 
pedience  ;  others  doubtful.  Few  comparatively  think 
it  a  plainly  revealed  divine  institution.  The  truth  is, 
it  was  a  substitute  for  the  plurality  of  bishops  in  each 
congregation  of  the  New  Testament  church.  It  is  a 
painful  truth  that  some  good  men  easily  glide  from 
expedience  to  fact .  A  venerable  church,  who  had 
maintained  for  three  centuries  the  parity  of  pastors, 
were  distressed  a  few  ^ears  ago  with  congregations 
of  perishing  sinners,  who  wished  such  unlearned 
ministers  as  offered,  instead  of  waiting  till  their  chil¬ 
dren  were  confirmed  heathens.  No  laymen  are  ad¬ 
mitted  to  the  ministerium.  And  these  unlearned 
men,  (we  mean  men  who  acknowledged  themselves 
to  be  unlearned,)  were  no  better. 

In  their  distress  these  good  men  looked  about, 
and  sitting  probably  (as  the  Germans  often  open 
their  synods)  in  a  cloud  of  smoke,  u  inclined  to”  a 
deacon — not  a  lav-elder — not  a  trustee  for  the  poor. 
It  was  now  plain  and  clear  to  them ,  that  the  diaconate 
in  the  New  Testament  was  an  inferior  grade  of 
clergy.  Here  was  a  reservoir  for  the  illiterate  pas¬ 
tors.  They  were  bishops,  but  nothing  lower .  They 
governed  and  taught.  And  though  they  might  rise 
above  the  episcopal  office,  (we  mean  the  government 
of  a  congregation,)  it  was  perfectly  understood  they 
never  would  unless  in  extraordinary  cases.  Thus 
men  think  themselves  at  liberty  to  cut  and  carve  the 
property  of  the  Christian  public  just  as  they  please. 

X.  A  Presbyterian  has,  however,  favoured  us 
with  a  passage  from  Hilary,  who  wrote  as  late  as  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  thus  quoted  in 
the  Continuation  of  Letters  concerning  the  Christian 
Ministry :  w  Among  all  nations  old  age  is  honourable. 
“  Hence  it  is  that  the  synagogue  and  afterwards  the 


52  A  DEFENCE  OF 

u  church,  had  elders,”  (seniores,)  “  without  whose 
u  counsel  nothing  was  done  in  the  church,  which 
u  by  what  negligence  it  grew  into  disuse  I  know  not, 
a  unless  perhaps  by  the  sloth  or  rather  by  the  pride 
u  of  the  teachers,  while  they  alone  wished  to  appear 
u  something.” 

Now,  whether  these  seniores  are  eminent  men 
or  teaching  presbyters,  we  do  not  say.  But 
A  Presbyterian  could  hardly  have  quoted  more  nn * 
happily .  Whatever  else  Hilary  means,  he  cannot 
possibly  mean  that  there  existed  in  the  apostolic 
church,  (as  it  is  insinuated  he  does,)  elders  whose 
office  excluded  preaching.  For  this  very  writer  as¬ 
serts  it  not  only  as  his  opinion,  but  as  a  fact ,  that  in 
the  beginning  a  commission  was  given  to  all  Chris¬ 
tians  to  preach  and  baptize. 

In  the  New  Testament  church  the  brethren  or 
whole  church  were  associated  with  the  apostles  and 
elders  in  important  ecclesiastical  acts.  We  do  not 
wish  to  discuss  the  question  on  what  occasions  or 
how  far  the  presbyters  acted  without  the  church. 
We  have  enough  on  hand.  We  leave  the  assertion 
general.  Quotations  already  made  prove  it. 

The  practice  of  consulting  the  people  continued 
long  in  the  church.  We  need  not  multiply  quotations. 
They  are  at  hand  in  modern  writers  of  authority. 
Cyprian  and  Cyprian’s  time,  in  connexion  uh  the 
New  Testament,  will  suffice  to  show  the  custom  of 
the  church.  Cyprian  was  chosen  bv  u  the  suffrage 
u  of  all  his  people.”  Cases  of  scandal  were  “  deter- 
u  mined  by  him  and  his  colleagues  and  his  whole 
“  flock — the  common  counsel  of  them  all.”  u  Offen- 
u  ders”  pleaded  u  their  cause  before  all  the  people.” 
These  matters  were  discussed  w  in  their  presence 
a  and  judged  by  them.” 

Now,  has  any  man  in  his  senses  to  learn  that  among 
the  people  there  were  old  men — that  among  the  plebs 
there  were  seniores  plebis ,-  men  of  greater  age  ov 
dignity. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


53 


At  first  the  whole  chmoh— seniores  and  juniores — 
or,  as  Hilary  elsewhere  expresses  it,  senior es  and 
novissimi — old  and  young — high  and  low — were  con¬ 
sulted.  As  the  church  became  wickeder  the  people 
we  know  were  gradually  excluded  from  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  affairs.  The  first  step  would  be  to  consult 
only  these  seniores,  and  the  next  to  exclude  them  also. 

When  the  churches  attended  at  councils  with  the 
bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  in  Cyprian’s  time, 
we  may  be  certain  it  was  chiefly  some  of  the  elder 
and  more  respectable  men.  We  do  not  now  speak  of 
the  council  of  one  congregation  which  still  existed 
wfhere  as  many  of  the  church  as  pleased  could  at¬ 
tend.  There  was  no  doubt  sent  to  their  larger  coun¬ 
cils  a  deputation  in  fact .  And  in  all  cases,  as  the 
church  was  new  modelling ,  and  the  people  were  di¬ 
vesting  of  their  rights,  their  seniores  would  natu¬ 
rally  and  gradually  occupy  their  place.  The  multi¬ 
tude  who  once  surrounded  the  apostles  and  elders, 
neither  could  nor  were  desired  to  attend  assemblies 
at  a  distance  from  their  houses.  And  though  they 
sometimes  compelled  the  pastors  to  hear  them,  long 
after  Cyprian’s  time,  yet  from  that  period,  and  pro¬ 
bably  before  it  in  some  places,  the  clergy  would  be 
desirous  to  avoid  their  inconvenient  interference  as 
much  as  possible.  Thanks  be  to  God,  that  noble 
martyr  was  not  thus  guilty.  We  believe  he  always 
erred  sincerely.  But,  before  the  time  of  Hilary, 
Christianity  was  the  established  religion.  The  mul¬ 
titude  were  u  entirely  excluded”  in  this  century , 
and  probably  the  work  wa&  almost  completed  before  he 
zvrote.  And  he  who  reads  the  history  of  the  age 
will  not  be  surprised  that  the  clergy  set  their  feet 
almost  at  once  on  the  neck  of  the  more  eminent 
laity,  who,  without  doubt,  generally  had  been  still 
consulted,  when  the  multitude  were  not. 

This  class  of  elders  Providence  instituted,  Peter 
refers  to  them,  or  at  least  includes  them,  when  he 

£  2 


54 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


says,  “Ye  younger  submit  to  the  elder,” — u  be  clothed 
“  with  humility.”  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  that 
this  class  of  elders  in  after  ages  included  not  only  the 
confessor  but  the  man  in  gay  clothing .  We  may 
say  the  multitude  was  preceded  not  only  by  aged 
disciples,  but  by  wealthy  patrons . 

These  seniores  of  the  people  are  named  after  the 
clergy — after  deacons.  They  are  said  to  be  of  the 
people .  The  order  once  was  bishops,  deacons,  and 
brethren:  Afterwards  it  was  “bishops,  presbyters, 
“  deacons,  and  the  churches  of  God;”  “bishops, 
“  presbyters,  deacons,  confessors  and  laity”  Some 
of  these  confessors  were  laymen.  After  this  it  was 
bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  and  seniores  of  the  peo¬ 
ple .  No  doubt  some  pious  men  would  often  revivre 
the  expiring  usages  of  the  ancient  church,  as  Leo  did 
the  preaching  of  bishops  at  Rome.  We  need  not  be 
surprised  if  we  sometimes  hear  of  clergy ,  (that  is 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,)  seniores ,  and  all  the 
people ,  old  and  young,  respectable  and  mean.  The 
eminent  man  was  one  of  all  the  people ,  and  distin¬ 
guished  from  the  clergy ,  among  whom  the  ruling 
presbyter  is  ever  placed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  in 
Christian  antiquity. 

We  are  sorry  A  Presbyterian  catches  at  a  word 
without  considering  its  meaning.  He  and  his  re¬ 
viewer  are  respectable  men,  and  men  of  solid  under¬ 
standing,  and  ought  not  thus  to  distress  seniores  et 
novissimi.  They  are  good  men,  and  had  they  never 
been  injured  by  ecclesiastical  councils,  such  as  Gre¬ 
gory  describes,  they  had  not  been  cruel:  Noxv  they 
are.  Let  the  reader  judge. 

A  Presbyterian  (his  reviewer  aiding  and  abetting) 
takes  up  this  senior ,  this  harmless  old  man,  crushes 
him  into  a  mute  elder,  and  strives  to  thrust  him  down 
poor  laymen’s  throats.  Here  we  object.  It  shall 
not  be  done  if  we  can  help  it.  Here  in  this  defence 
are  the  reasons  of  some  laymen.  Before  the  presby- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


55 


teries  commence  their  operations,  “  in  regard  to  this 
“  subject,”  let  some  learned  clerk  (of  that  side:  For 
there  are  some  with  the  laymen ;  let  him)  set  them 
aside. 

If  “  A  Presbyterian''  means  by  lay-elder  an  old  man 
doing  all  the  good  in  his  power,  an  eminently  good 
man,  a  wealthy  patron,  or  a  bustling,  busy,  active 
man,  we  have  no  dispute  with  him.  But  when  he 
insinuates  that  seniores ,  not  clergy,  were  below  dea¬ 
cons,  yet  ordained  presbyters,  he  should  offer  us 
some  proofs.  They  are  not  among  the  presbyters , 
or  clergy ,  or  ordained  persons;  but  of  the  people. 

His  lay-presbyter  is  an  elder  of  equal  power  with 
the  teaching  presbyter  in  the  government  of  the 
church  ;  but  whose  ordination  excludes  teaching.  But 
no  presbyter  was  thus  excluded  from  teaching  ac¬ 
cording  to  Hilary — the  very  authority  adduced  to 
prove  the  contrary.  In  the  beginning  he  says  all 
had  a  commission  to  preach — elders  and  young.  No 
one  was  prevented  from  this. 

XI.  The  quotation  is  a  commentary  on  1  Tim  v. 
1.  “  Rebuke  not  an  elder,  but  intreat  him  as  a  father, 
“  and  the  younger  men  as  brethren,  the  elder  women 
“  as  mothers.”  If  A  Presbyterian  had  not  told  us 
the  contrary,  we  would  have  supposed,  perhaps  erro¬ 
neously,  that  Hilary  meant  just  what  the  apostle  did. 
If  Hilary  meant,  as  A  Presbyterian  asserts,  to  distin¬ 
guish  between  a  presbyter  who  ruled ,  and  one  who 
also  taught,  as  of  different  orders ;  it  is  strange  that 
we  hear  nothing  of  it  when  he  comments  on  the  17th 
verse.  He  speaks  of  the  office  of  the  ruling  presby¬ 
ter  there  mentioned  as  including  teaching.  The 
comment  on  this  verse  is  a  complete  proof  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  an  office  of  presbyter  being  abolish¬ 
ed.  He  lived  some  hundred  years  too  soon. 

He  concluded,  as  any  man  of  “  plain  good  sense 
“  would  conclude”  if  unprejudiced,  “that  when  it 
“  zuas  written  there  were  elders”  whose  duty  it  was 

J 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


56 

to  rule  and  labour  in  the  -word ,  and  that  there  was  a 
difference  of  talent  with  respect  to  each  part  of  their 
duty,  and  that  some  of  these  local  bishops  would  be 
able  and  willing  to  devote  more  time  than  others  to 
the  duties  of  the  eldership. 

The  comment  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet  contains  such 
plain  truth  that  we  cannot  forbear  transcribing  it. 
u  Some  attended  most  to  ruling  the  flock  already 
“  converted,  others  laboured  most  in  converting 
a  others  to  the  faith  by  preaching:  Though  both 
u  these — did  deserve  both  respect  and  maintenance, 
a  yet  especially  those  who  employed  themselves  in 
“  converting  others,  in  as  much  as  their  burden  was 
“  greater,  their  labours  more  abundant,  their  suffer- 
“  ings  more.” — u  The  presbyters  spoken  of  by 
“  Paul  are  Scripture-bishops.”  This  is  incontro¬ 
vertible.  By  bishop  and  presbyter  Paul  means  the 
same  officer. 

We  have  heard  the  following  thoughts  suggested 
in  conversation.  We  think  the  argument  unanswera¬ 
ble.  If  we  say  there  were  lay-elders  at  Philippi 
when  Paul  wrote  to  the  church  there,  we  insult  his 
memory.  He  salutes,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
epistle,  the  saints  or  brethren,  the  deacons  and  the 
bishops  of  the  congregation ;  at  the  end  he  again  sa¬ 
lutes  every  saint.  He  presents  the  respects  of  the 
brethren  then  with  him,  and  of  all  the  saints  where 
they  were,  and  particularly  of  those  of  Cesar’s  house¬ 
hold.  He  speaks  of  the  generous  and  Christian 
friendship  of  the  Philippians  in  the  supply  of  his. 
wants  once  and  again,  when  others  were  neglect¬ 
ful.  He  urges  this  church  to  practise  whatever  was 
lovely. 

Now,  who  can  believe  that  all  this  while  his  con¬ 
duct  was  not  only  foolish  but  an  outrage  on  decency. 
He  salutes  bishops,  deacons,  and  brethren  ,*  he  never 
once  mentions  the  lay-elders.  Had  he  saluted  only 
the  church,  or  all  the  paints,  there  needed  no  more  : 


LAY-TEACHING. 


0* 

But,  when  saluting  all  other  classes  of  Christians,  the 
lay-eldership,  the  most  wonderful  office  that  ever  ex¬ 
isted,  he  entirely  overlooks. 

We  give  the  reader  the  opinion  and  general  asser¬ 
tion  of  another  learned  man  on  this  subject. 

“  It  can  never  be  pretended,”  says  Mr.  Thorn¬ 
dike,  44  that  St.  Jerome ,  or  any  ecclesiastical  writer 
44  before  or  after  St.  Jerome,  ever  alleged  the  words 
te  of  St.  Paul :  The  elders  that  rule  well  are  worthy 
44  of  double  honour  specially,  &c.  or  any  other  sylla- 
u  ble  of  the  whole  Scripture,  to  show  that  any  of 
41  those  that  St.  Paul  pronounces  worthy  of  double 
44  honour  were  laymen,  that  is,  of  the  rank  of  the 
people.”  We  believe  this  cannot  be  disproved. 
Whatever  Hilary  means  by  these  seniores  of  the 
synagogue  and  church,  they  -were  such  as  existed  in 
the  Corinthian  congregation.  These  were  not  mute 
seniores.  Thus  Hilary  comments  on  1  Cor  xiv.  31. 
44  For  ye  may  all  prophecy  one  by  one,  that  all  may 
‘4  learn,  and  all  may  be  comforted.” 

44  This  is  a  tradition  of  the  synagogue  which  he 
44  w  ishes  us  to  follow*,  because  he  is  indeed  writing  to 
44  Christians,  but  to  those  who  of  gentiles  had  become 
44  such,  not  of  Jews ;  that  the  seniors  may  speak 
44  sitting  in  dignity ”  ( sedentes  disputent  seniores  dig - 
44  nitatef)  44  in  their  chairs, those  who  follow  them  from 
44  their  lower  benches,  and  that  the  last ”  Jiovissimi ) 
44  may  give  their  opinions  from  the  floor  upon  their 
44  mats.  To  whom  if  any  thing  shall  have  been  reveal- 
44  ed,  he  directs  an  opportunity  of  speaking  to  be  given, 
44  and  he  directs  that  they  shall  not  be  despised  for 
44  they  are  members  of  the  body.”  This  is  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson. 

Hilary  describes  the  teaching  of  these  Corinthians 
and  of  Paul  in  his  epistles  by  the  same  word  :  44  Illo 
44  loco  de  ordinatione  ecclesiae  di sput, at T  The  seni¬ 
ores  dignitate ,  and  the  novissimi — the  eminent  and 
the  mean  all  taught  publicly  in  the  church  as  in  the 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


synagogue.  Let  the  reader  compare  this  quotation 
with  that  above  from  Philo. 

These  are  the  very  seniores  of  A  Presbyterian, 
Whatever  else  Hilary  means,  this  passage  shows  de¬ 
cisively  he  means  neither  mute  elders,  nor  mutes  of 
anv  kind.  How  far  it  is  probable  he  had  in  view 
ordained  teaching  presbyters  we  will  consider  just 
now:  But  whatever  else  these  seniores  were,  whether 
ordained  presbyters  or  presbyters  in  fact — seniores 
in  age  and  dignity — they  were  preachers.  Seniores 
(whatever  else  in  the  early  ages,)  had  always  a  right 
to  teach;  all  had  a  commission  to  preach,  says  Hi¬ 
lary  :  Especially  all  presbyters  had. 

Hilary,  in  the  quotation  of  A  Presbyterian ,  does  not 
intimate  that  his  seniores  did  not  teach  in  the  apos¬ 
tolic  church.  Does  he  say  they  did  not  teach  in  his 
day?  No  such  thing.  He  merely  tells  us  certain 
seniores  ceased  to  be  consulted.  He  attributes  this 
to  the  pride  of  those  whom  he  calls  teachers.  By 
the  teachers,  Hilary  means  particularly  the  bishops  of 
his  day.  Does  he  intend  to  intimate  that  they  were 
the  only  teachers  in  the  apostolic  day?  He  says  not. 
Does  he  mean  that  they  were  the  only  teachers  in 
his  day  ?  We  might  as  well  conclude  that  there  were 
none  but  the  lay-teachers  in  the  apostolic  church  : 
There  were  then  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pas¬ 
tors,  and  teachers.  Because  certain  men  were  called 
teachers,  did  not  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  and 
pastors  teach.  Those  who  had  the  name  of  teachers, 
were  of  the  lowest  degree  of  teachers. 

Eusebius  quotes  Dionysius,  a  bishop  of  the  third 
century,  as  saying,  “  In  the  province  of  Arsionitae, 
u  having  convened  the  presbyters  and  teachers 
u  of  the  brethren  in  every  particular 

u  village,  such  brethren  also  as  had  a  mind  to  come 
w  being  present ,  I  advised  them  that  there  might  be 
u  researches  made  into  this  doctrine  in  the  presence 
u  of  a  public  assembly.”  In  order  to  determine  what 


LAY-TEACHING. 


59 


these  presbyters  were  we  have  only  to  listen  to  Ori- 
gen,  the  tutor  of  this  great  man,  and  others  below, 
who  describe  every  presbyter  as  a  preacher:  But  this 
is  unnecessary.  The  expression  of  Dionysius  is 
u  presbyters  and  teachers.”  These  are  all  the  pres¬ 
byters  of  each  village,  and  other  teachers  not  pres- 
byters.  A  man  must  sell  his  understanding  before 
he  can  persuade  himself  to  doubt  that  these  presby¬ 
ters  were  the  teaching-rulers  of  the  village  congre¬ 
gation. 

But  who  were  these  teachers  ?  We  might  say  lay- 
teachers*  That  there  were  such  in  each  particular 
village  there  is  no  doubt;  that  there  were  such  con¬ 
vened  among  the  brethren  is  very  probable. 

The  language  used  in  this  age  on  other  similar 
occasions  is  such  as  this,  presbyters ,  deacons ,  and  the 
churches  of  God.  We  learn  from  Dionysius  what 
the  last  class,  sometimes  at  least,  meant.  As  many 
of  the  brethren  as  chose  to  come.  And  we  learn 
from  the  other  mode  of  expression,  what  Dionysius 
designed  by  teachers  :  No  doubt  deacons.  Every 
deacon  (say  quotations  below)  taught.  Probably 
also  lay-teachers.  From  his  not  saying  at  once  dea¬ 
cons,  it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  it  included 
those  two  classes  of  teachers  below  presbyters. 

Here  then  is  an  instance  where  the  appellation  of 
teacher  is  used,  and  it  cannot  possibly  be  used  ex¬ 
clusively.  There  could  be  no  mistake,  for  no  one 
doubted  that  a  presbyter  was  a  teacher.  A  Presby¬ 
terian  would  hardly  contend  that  none  of  these  pres¬ 
byters  of  every  village  were  teachers.  And  Hilary 
was  just  as  little  liable  to  be  mistaken  when  he  spoke 
of  the  teachers — that  is  bishops — the  most  eminent 
of  that  class  in  the  world.  They  claimed  the  name 
as  belonging  to  them  in  a  peculiar  sense. 

Still  if  A  Presbyterian  insists  that  the  seniores 
plebis  (seniors  of  the  people,)  ought  to  be  classed ; 
there  is  no  harm  in  selecting  the  old  and  eminent  of 


60 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


every  congregation,  and  considering  that  congrega¬ 
tion  as  consisting  of  two  classes,  seniores  and  novis- 
simi — less  eminent.  Let  him  do  this  :  Provided 
that  he  does  not  act  as  in  ancient  times  some  shrewd 
ones  did.  Of  a  deacon  they  made  a  man  a  presbyter, 
sore  against  his  will,  to  prevent  his  being  made  a 
bishop.  Said  they  afterwards,  He  has  had  his 
promotion.  Let  him  do  it:  provided  he  leaves 
them  among  the  multitude ,  though  they  be  chief  men 
among  the  brethren ;  and  that  as  the  presbyters  did 
with  regard  to  these  chief  men  among  the  brethren , 
he  leaves  them  in  possession  of  their  natural  rights, 
especially  that  of  teaching  truth ;  and  that  he  do  not 
justify  the  seniores  of  the  clergy  in  excluding  from 
the  government  of  the  church,  either  these  seniores 
of  the  people,  or  the  multitude ,  or  whole  church,  or 
brethren,  of  whom  they  were  a  part.  The  sentiment 
of  an  early  apostolic  father,  Clemens,  is  the  same 
with  the  passage  of  the  xv.  chapter  of  the  Acts, 
to  which  we  have  just  alluded.  “  Chosen  by  other 
u  eminent  men,”  says  he,  “  with  the  consent  of  the 
u  xvhole  church “  Things  commanded  by  the  mul- 
“  titude The  clergy  were  as  criminal  in  excluding 
the  whole  body  of  the  people  at  first,  as  their  chief 
men  or  seniores  afterwards. 

These  chief  men  among  the  multitude — whole 
church — or  brethren,  mentioned  above,  were  some 
of  these  seniores  plebis .  But  unhappily  for  A  Pres¬ 
byterian,  they  were  not  mutes,  nor,  as  far  as  we 
know,  elders  of  any  kind.  They  were  sent  by  the 
elders. 

And  as  our  object  in  resisting  this  idea  of  mute 
elders  is  to  preserve  the  rights  of  the  laity,  it  is 
happy  for  us  that  these  chief  men  among  the  bre¬ 
thren  were  preachers,  as  is  evident  from  the  32d 
verse.  And  this  confirms  our  interpretation  of  Hilary, 
who,  as  we  have  said,  if  he  speaks  of  seniores  plebis, 
means  by  them  such  eminent  men  as  the  prophets 


LAY-TEACHING. 


61 


and  teachers  of  Corinth,  and,  as  Judas  and  Silas.  They 
were  chief  men  of  the  brethren:  But  they  were 
teachers . 

“  Was  there  ever,”  says  A  Presbyterian ,  “  a  state 
“  of  society — in  which  the  practice  of  consulting  the 
u  aged  had  fallen  into  disuse.”  If  this  has  any 
meaning  whatever,  he  asks — Did  this  state  of  things 
ever  exist  in  the  Christian  church  with  respect  to  its 
ministers  ?  He  knows  it  did :  IViost  well  instructed 
Christian  boys  could  tell  him  it  existed  during  and 
just  after  the  time  of  Constantine — that  it  existed  at 
the  time  when  Hilary  wrote. 

We  think  A  Presbyterian  has  dwelt  unnecessarily 
on  clerical  depravity.  But  we  must  refer  to  an  im¬ 
partial  historian  for  the  same  thing  :  Mosheim  was 
not  disposed  to  do  the  Christian  clergy  or  any  section 
of  them  injustice.  This  especially  was  the  period 
when  under  an  establishment,  and  depraved  by  coun¬ 
cils,  they  used  the  influence  acquired  by  the  holy 
lives  of  their  predecessors,  to  trample  on  the  people's 
rights. 

All  we  have  to  show  is  their  peculiar  wickedness, 
and  especially  that  they  trampled  on  the  rights  both 
of  seniores  et  novissimi.  a  The  bishops  contended 
u  with  each  other  in  the  most  scandalous  manner — 
u  while  they  trampled  upon  the  rights  of  the  people 
.  These  contests,  about  Hilary’s  time,  were  attended 
with  a  cruel  massacres  and  desolations.”  There  was 
u  an  entire  exclusion  of  the  people  jrom  all  part  in 
u  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs .”  There 
is  not  the  least  hint  of  any  exception  in  favour  of  the 
aged. 

In  one  of  his  ov7n  quotations  respecting  Cyprian's 
time,  A  Presbyterian  might  have  found  an  answer  to 
his  question  :  w  We  are  such  as  that  we  sometimes 
u  in  pride  go  beyond  even  the  wickedest  of  the 
u  princes  of  the  gentiles — You  may  see  even  in  the 
“  greater  part  of  lawfully  constituted  churches,  espc- 

F 


62 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  dally  those  of  greater  cities ,  how  the  pastors  of 
44  God’s  people  suffer  none,  though  they  were  even 
44  the  chicfest  of  Christ’s  disciples,  to  be  equal  with 
41  themselves.”  Recollect  Hilary  was  a  deacon  of 
Rome . 

Here  is  precisely  what  Hilary  asserts.  By  teach¬ 
ers  he  means  the  pastor-bishops  who  (as  we  shall 
just  now  show)  wf;re  in  his  time  successfully  en¬ 
grossing  public  teaching  in  the  church  to  themselves. 
Their  pride  prevented  them  from  placing  the  seni- 
ores ,  or  most  eminent  or  chiefest  of  the  disciples  on 
an  equality  with  themselves,  or  being  governed  by 
their  counsels. 

We  could  unite  all  parties,  however,  if  they  were 
willing  to  shake  hands  (as  the  ancient  presbytery 
often  sat)  -with  the  whole  church.  We  have  seen 
who  are  Hilary’s  seniores ,  if  they  are  of  the  people , 
not  of  the  clergy.  But  Hilary  probably  thought 
more  than  in  an  established  church  he  dared  to  men¬ 
tion  very  plainly,  now  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century. 

The  presbyters  of  the  New  Testament  church,  al¬ 
ways  associated  with  the  brethren,  were  not  those 
elevated  rulers  that  bishops  afterwards  were.  They 
really  ruled :  But  the  difference  between  them  and 
the  flock  was  more  like  that  obtaining  among  Friends 
than  among  Catholics.  It  resembled  the  distinction 
now  between  the  lay-elder  and  the  people.  For  a 
long  time  the  pastor  was  very  much  like  one  of  the 
people,  dressed  like  other  men,  often  poor  in  ap¬ 
pearance,  and  often  very  unlearned.  It  would  have 
made  the  hair  of  some  men’s  head  stand  on  end  to 
hear  him  expound. 

Now  between  these  presbyters  and  the  other  emi¬ 
nent  men  of  the  church  was  there  a  very  great 
difference  ?  It  would  be  difficult  for  a  stranger,  some¬ 
times,  to  distinguish  between  the  presbyters  and  other 
seniores. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


63 


Is  it  then  surprising  that  the  apostle  uses  the  same 
word  for  presbyters  and  old  men,  and  that  the  same 
terms  which  Hilary  uses  are  applied  by  more  ancient 
writers  to  presbyter-bishops.  The  same  word  used 
in  Hilary’s  day  to  describe  seniorcs  of  the  people, 
below  deacons,  if  he  means  them,  are  used  a  century 
before  him  to  describe  (not  lay-presbyters,  for  such 
things  never  existed  during  the  early  ages,)  but  or¬ 
daining  presbyters. 

In  the  fourth  line  before  his  quotation,  u  A  Pres- 
u  byterian”  will  find  44  majorem  natu,”  meaning  just 
the  same  as  u  seniores,”  which  follows,  and  w’hich 
he  says ,  means  lay-presbyters.  But  Firmilian  (of 
Cyprian’s  day,)  in  lord  King,  says,  44  seniors  [ma- 
44  jores  natu]  preside,  who  have  the  power  of  baptiz- 
44  ing,  confirming  and  ordaining,”  [imposing  hands  and 
ordaining.]  And  Tertullian,  (before  Cyprian’s  time,) 
in  lord  King,  speaking  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  of 
one  congregation  says,  “  approved  elders,  ( seniores ) 
44  preside.” 

Now  here  are  both  the  terms  (which  are  used  by 
Hilary  to  describe  the  persons  he  means,  in  the 
whole  passage  from  which  A  Presbyterian's  quota¬ 
tion  is  made,)  used  by  older  writers  to  designate  the 
presbyter-bishops  preaching  in  the  church  among  the 
old  men  and  young,  (who  chose  to  be  present,)  and 
performing  all  the  episcopal  acts. 

44  A  Presbyterian ”  has  here  a  wretched  choice. 
The  result  is  the  44  same,  let  these  seniores"  and 
•4  maiores  natu"  be  either  Corinthian  teachers ,  or 
presbyters  in  fact,  or  official  presbyters  taken  out  of 
these  teachers;  they  preached,  that  is,  such  as  were 
able,  and  according  to  their  ability.  Wherever  we 
find  them  they  are  preachers. 

XII.  That  Hilary  meant  seniores  of  the  clergy  is 
the  more  probable,  because  he  has  informed  us  of 
changes  in  the  church,  and  because  the  practice  to 
which  he  alludes,  he  says,  was  44  grown  out  of  use  P 


64 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


But  the  senior  es  below  deacons  were  in  use  in  Hilary's 
day  and  after  it :  The  senior es  of  Firmilian  and  Ter- 
tullian  were  no  more .  Presbyters  were  no  longer  the 
same . 

What  is  certain  from  Hilary,  is  this,  that  his 
New  Testament  seniores  had  a  right  to  teach.  This 
is  our  grand  point.  We  do  not  determine  other 
doubtful  points:  We  leave  the  reader  to  judge,  and 
we  may  say  to  take  his  choice  between  presbyters 
and  eminent  men :  Or  to  conclude  that  we  cannot 
fully  explain  how  extensive  Hilary’s  view  was.  All 
we  are  certain  of  is,  that  there  was  no  mute  elder 
in  the  case.  He  never  existed.  He  is  not  the  creature 
of  the  Word,  who  created  the  universe  and  arranged 
the  church.  It  is  an  important  truth,  that  God  is 
not  the  author  of  defects. 

An  order  (or  orders)  which  existed  when  Hilary 
wrote,  he  calls  teachers .  It  does  not  necessarily  im¬ 
ply  (and  from  other  sources  we  know  that  Hilary 
did  not  mean)  that  these  were  exclusively  teachers. 
They  were  eminently  so.  In  the  time  of  Cyprian 
and  Firmilian,  the  middle  of  the  century  preceding 
Hilary’s  age,  those  presbyters  who  were  accustomed 
to  use  their  right  of  teaching,  would  do  so  only  with 
the  bishop’s  permission,  and  he  would,  of  course, 
assign  to  the  presbyters  the  least  public,  and  most  la¬ 
borious  parts  of  the  episcopal  office.  But  when  it 
was  necessary,  they  performed  their  own  and  his  du¬ 
ties  too . 

There  was  then  the  senate  of  the  presbytery  in 
each  congregation,  which  congregation  all  received 
the  sacrament  at  the  same  altar.  The  bishop  then 
“  did  all  things  by  the  common  council  of  his  presby- 
“  tery.” 

In  some  parishes,  in  Hilary’s  time,  what  Jerome 
calls  an  u  ill  custom,”  existed — presbyters  did  not 
preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops.  Socrates  speaks 
of  it  as  a  peculiarity  of  Alexandria,  commencing  in 


LAV-TEACHING. 


65 


the  time  of  Arius.  In  almost  all  places  the  presbyter 
was  but  a  shadow  of  the  ancient  elder.  If  you  ask, 
Had  the  bishop  a  council  in  the  same  sense  as  in 
Cyprian’s  time  ?  Evidently  not.  No  one  would  ask 
had  the  congregation  such  a  council,  as  were  the 
presbyters  of  Ephesus  in  St.  Paul’s.  And  Hilary 
kept  his  eye  on  this  period.  The  bishop  had  properly 
no  council  in  Hilary’s  day  ;  none  in  the  ancient  sense. 

The  number  of  churches  had  been  considerably 
increased  during  the  favourable  period  that  preceded 
the  last  persecutions ;  and  they  were  greatly  increas¬ 
ed  on  the  establishment  of  Christianity.  In  Hilary’s 
time,  though  generally  the  bishoprics  consisted  of  but 
one  congregation,  in  many  cases  they  were  divided 
into  smaller  sections,  supplied  by  a  presbyter  from 
the  bishop’s  church.  This  had  been  the  case  in 
Alexandria  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
There,  however,  these  distinct  assemblies  mentioned 
by  Dionysius,  in  Eusebius,  were  held  only  u  in  the 
remotest  suburbs.”  Probably  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century  the  same  thing  had  been  introduced 
in  one  or  two  other  large  cities. 

This  lord  King  does  not  admit.  He  considers  Alex¬ 
andria  as  the  only  exception  in  the  three  first  ages ; 
and  Dr.  Campbell  says,  it  was  far  from  being  gene¬ 
ral  till  a  considerable  time  after  the  third.  In  that 
part  of  the  fourth  age,  before  Hilary  wrote,  it  ap¬ 
pears  to  us  it  must  have  been  rapidly  increasing  from 
the  degenerating '  state  of  the  established  religion. 
Every  bishop  would  now  be  adding  to  the  number  of 
subordinate  churches  as  much  as  he  could.  Indeed 
sincere  piety  would  often  combine  with  ambition, 
and  often  be  the  only  motive.  The  bishops,  at  any' 
rate,  in  most  cases,  did  not  perceive  the  advantage 
of  newT  bishoprics.  The  dignity  of  the  overseer  was 
increased  by  the  largeness  of  the  diocese. 

Some  of  the  episcopal  acts  the  presbyter  was  not 

f  2 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


ea 

now  competent  to  perform.  If  in  some  cases  he  was 
fixed  in  his  own  section  of  the  congregation,  his  al¬ 
legiance  to  the  bishop  was  thus  secured  by  the  policy 
of  the  church.  The  consecrated  bread  was  sent  him 
from  the  cathedral.  But  almost  universally  he  now 
only  itinerated  as  the  bishop  directed.  He  was  a  mere 
curate,  and  no  longer  properly ,  certainly  no  longer 
so  in  the  ancient  sense,  of  the  bishop’s  council. 

Originally  the  bishop  was  of  the  senate  of  the 
presbytery,  afterwards  he  acted  with  it.  Now  he 
was  absolute.  And  in  too  many  cases  (but  especially 
in  Hilary’s  diocese,)  they  threw  up  the  reins  to  their 
passions.  u  Many  good  Christians,”  says  Mosheim, 
u  were  no  longer  able  to  bear  the  tyranny  and  arro- 
u  gance  of  the  bishops  of  this  century.” 

In  the  earlier  ages,  looking  into  a  Christian  con¬ 
gregation,  large  or  small,  you  see  almost  universally  a 
president  and  his  presbytery  of  preaching  elders,  with¬ 
out  whose  counsel  nothing  was  done  u  in  the  church .” 

In  Hilary’s  time,  you  see,  almost  universally,  in 
each  congregation,  or  section  of  a  congregation,  a 
teacher .  If  an  itinerating  presbyter  in  his  offset 
church,  he  has,  of  course ,  no  council  of  presbyters. 
If  it  be  the  bishop  in  his  own  church,  you  may  see 
there  degraded  presbyters.  But  they  are  not  co-pas¬ 
tors  ;  they  have  no  authority.  He  asks  advice  neither 
of  these  nor  of  the  itinerating  presbyters,  nor  of 
those  who  might  then  be  fixed  in  distinct  subordinate 
churches.  Or  if  he  does  avail  himself  of  their  know¬ 
ledge,  he  takes  their  advice  or  not  as  he  pleases.  He 
is  wholly  independent  of  presbvters  and  people. 
These  elders  are  a  mere  shadow  of  the  ancient  pres¬ 
byter,  who,  in  the  opinion  of  Hilary ,  was  originally 
of  the  same  order  as  a  bishop. 

This  state  of  things  would  gratify  the  u  sloth”  of 
the  teacher,  whether  bishop  or  presbyter.  They  were 
saved  the  trouble  of  consulting  any  one.  And  un¬ 
der  the  new  arrangements  an  increased  number  of 


LAY-TE  ACHING. 


6  r 

inferior  clergy  and  the  neglect  of  the  more  pri¬ 
vate  and  painful  duties  of  their  function  would  re¬ 
lieve  them  still  further. 

44  But  it  was  44  rather  the  pride  of  teachers,  while 
u  they  alone  wished  to  appear  something”  that  was 
thus  gratified. 

Though  Hilary’s  view  may  have  embraced,  un¬ 
der  the  idea  of  teachers,  both  bishop  and  presbyter, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  designed  the  bishop 
especially.  Leo  in  the  fifth  century  says,  u  Preach¬ 
ing  belongs  to  the  bishops  only.”  From  the  time 
of  Arius  presbyters  did  not  preach  at  Alexan¬ 
dria.  Between  Hilary  and  Leo,  Jerome  says,  u  the 
41  ill  custom  to  forbid  presbyters  to  preach  in  the 
presence  of  bishops  existed  in  some  churches.”  Hila¬ 
ry  might,  with  great  propriety,  call  the  bishops  the 
teachers.  They  had,  in  some  measure,  engrossed  it, 
and  they  were  endeavouring  still  further  to  engross 
it.  For  a  long  time  the  presbyter  preached  only 
under  their  direction. 

The  council  of  teaching  presbyters  of  each  con¬ 
gregation  grew  into  disuse  as  gradually  as  we  could 
well  conceive.  How  far  Hilary  designed  this,  let 
the  reader  judge.  He  plainly  declares  that  the  bishop 
anciently  was  only  the  senior  presbyter,  in  a  council 
of  presbyters. 

The  situation  of  things  in  his  day  and  church  will 
render  it  more  probable  to  the  reader  that  Hilary 
had  in  view  the  degradation  of  the  ancient  presbyter. 
Hilary,  we  have  said,  was  a  deacon  of  the  parish  of 
Rome.  There,  about  half  a  century  before  Hilary 
wrote,  there  were  twenty-five  distinct  congregations, 
which  were  all  supplied  long  after  his  time ,  with  the 
consecrated  bread  from  the  bishop’s  church,  lest 
they  should  forget  their  dependance  on  it.  44  Make 
44  me  bishop  of  Rome,”  said  a  pagan  nobleman  to 
Damasus,  near  the  time  when  Hilary  wrote, 44  and  I 
4k  will  turn  Christian  immediately.”  What  did  the 


68 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


Roman  pontiff,  44  almost  at  the  summit  of  earthlij 
44  grandeur ,”  care  for  his  dependent  presbyters. 

It  appears  probable  to  us ,  that  Hilary  had  in  view 
the  abolition  of  the  council  of  the  seniores  of  times 
before  his  own .  Here  follows  the  opinion  of  bishop 
Stillingfleet.  He  considers  it  as  the  precise  mean¬ 
ing  of  A  Presbyterian's  quotation.  44  We  under- 
44  stand,”  says  he,  44  that  famous  speech  of  such  pres- 
44  byters  as  were  the  common  council  of  the  church — 
44  which  the  church  of  Christ  had,  as  the  Jewish 
44  synagogue  had  before.” 

Whatever  Hilary  designed,  the  reader  will  see  one 
thing  to  be  unquestionable.  That  seniores  and  ma¬ 
jor  es  natu  were  applied  in  the  time  of  Tertullian  and 
of  Firmilian,  to  clergymen ,  to  ordaining  presbyters, 
and  at  a  later  period,  to  men  in  the  church,  eminent, 
but not  of  the  clergy ,  old  men  of  the  people .  We  re¬ 
peat  this  now  in  order  that  it  may  be  distinctly  re¬ 
collected. 

Let  us  not  be  accused  of  spending  too  much  time 
on  this  monster.  He  frightens  poor  laymen.  If  he 
live,  he  may  prevent  many  a  Bunyan.  This  passage 
of  Hilary  is  one  of  his  last  retreats.  It  is  of  impor¬ 
tance  to  prevent  him  from  sheltering  there. 

XIII.  A  Presbyterian ,  in  the  commencement  of  his 
44  Letters  on  the  Ministry,”  &c.  very  improperly  re¬ 
jects  44  The  Constitutions”  without  any  44  distinction 
44  or  guard.”  In  the  44  Continuation ”  he  admits  that 
however  false  their  claims  of  inspiration,  they  are 
proofs  of  the  practice  of  the  church  at  a  certain  pe¬ 
riod — at  least  with  regard  to  some  things. 

He  had,  as  he  thought,  44  caught  the  creature”  be¬ 
tween  the  second  and  the  fifth  century.  He  had 
found  in  this  book  a  mute  elder.  We  read  Mr. 
Whiston’s  translation  of  it  with  nearly  the  same  view 
'  as  A  Presbyterian — we  mean  to  see  whether  any 
mutes  were  there.  This  passage  we  did  not  remark; 
it  did  not  strike  us  as  alluding  to  such  an  elder. 


LAY -TEACHING. 


^69 


Hardly  anyone  reading  the  hook ,  unless  A  Presbyte¬ 
rian,  would  have  supposed  so.  w  To  presbyters  also, 
when  they  labour  in  teaching ,  let  a  double  portion  be 
assigned.”  Thus  A  Presbyterian  translates  it. 

The  presbyter  zuhen  not  labouring  in  the  work  of 
the  gospel,  and  able  to  do  it,  should  receive  nothing. 
This  book  pretends  to  belong  to  a  period  when  there 
was  not  a  fixed  salary.  Those  who  needed  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  church  received  it  from  the  weekly,  or 
more  or  less  frequent,  oblations  of  the  faithful.  We 
admit  that  the  present  mode  of  a  fixed  salary  is  a 
proper  change — a  change  only  in  the  manner  of  sup¬ 
porting  the  gospel.  But  the  knowledge  of  the  an¬ 
cient  practice  illustrates  the  quotation.  Would  a 
man  in  the  apostolic  age,  who  only  aided  in  the  work 
of  the  gospel,  and  had  sufficient  time  to  devote  to  his 
secular  affairs,  be  willing  to  receive  that  portion  of 
the  fruits  of  Christian  liberalitv  due  to  him ,  whose 
whole  time  was  occupied  in  episcopal  duties  ? 

Says  the  Scotch  church,  (in  Bishop  Spotswood’s 
history,)  speaking  of  their  elders  for  one  year  being 
entitled  to  no  remuneration  :  u  Because  they  are  not 
u  so  occupied  with  the  affairs  of  the  church,  but  that 
u  they  may  have  leisure  to  attend  to  their  private 
“  business.” 

The  Constitutions  declare,  in  the  most  designed 
(not  incidental)  manner,  the  rights  and  duties  of  the 
presbyter,  what  he  may  and  ought  to  do,  and  what  he 
may  not  of  the  episcopal  offices.  u  To  teach,  to  offer, 
u  to  baptize,  and  to  bless  the  people,”  are  declared 
to  be  the  right  and  duty  of  the  presbyter,  zvithout  any 
exception  as  to  individuals  or  classes.  This  is  the 
most  absolute  proof  we  could  have  that  there  is  no 
such  doctrine  in  it,  as  that  of  a  presbyter  whose  of¬ 
fice  did  not  include  a  right  to  teach.  If  when  it  pro¬ 
fesses  to  tell  whether  or  not  a  presbyter  may  preach, 
it  tells  us  he  may,  and  makes  no  exception  whatever, 
and  this  is  not  proof,  what  would  be  evidence  ? 


ro 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


Besides,  it  gives  ample  lists  of  all  the  different 
classes  in  the  church,  and  describes  the  mode  of  con¬ 
secration  of  all  officers  whatever,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  discriminates  between  the  rights  and  duties 
of  each.  It  is  incredible  that  it  omitted  to  distin¬ 
guish  between  a  lay-office,  and  one  of  the  highest 
clerical  offices  in  the  church  of  the  same  name.  It  is 
incredible,  because  it  is  then  giving  lists  and  ac¬ 
curately  discriminating. 

The  rights  of  the  presbyter  are  to  preach,  offer, 
baptize,  and  bless — not  to  ordain.  The  deacon  and 
layman  may  preach  :  But  neither  may  offer  the  sa¬ 
crifice,  baptize,  or  give  the  blessing.  And  yet  there 
is  a  presbyter  who  dare  not  preach  ! 

Sub-deacon,  deaconness,  reader,  singer,  and  porter, 
are  all  carefully  described  as  regards  rank,  rights, 
and  ordination.  Not  one  word  is  said  of  the  lay- 
elder. — It  was  above  ten  centuries  too  soon. 

Mark  these  quotations  :  The  lviii.  apostolical 
canon — a  part  of  the  book — says  44  A  bishop  or  pres- 
44  byter  who  takes  no  care  of  the  clergy  or  people, 
u  and  does  not  instruct  them  in  piety,  let  him  be  se- 
pq  rated.” 

The  Constitutions  in  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter 
pray  thus :  u  Multiply  those  that  preside  in  thy 
church,  that  they  may  labour  both  in  word  and 
‘4  work.” — 44  That  this  person  being  filled  with  the 
,4  word  of  teaching ,  may  in  meekness  instruct  thy 
4:  people.”  It  is  one  of  these  presbyters  whom 
A  Presbyterian  says  had  no  right  to  teach. 

But  in  truth  there  is  no  such  passage,  if  you  un¬ 
derstand  the  word,  when ,  as  he  pretends  it  ought  to 
be  understood.  He  has  then  translated  it  wrong.  We 
will  now  demonstrate  this  in  English .  Mr.  Whis- 
ton’s  translation  is  as  follows  :  44  Let  also  a  double 
44  portion  be  set  apart  for  the  presbyters,  as  for  such 
44  who  labour ,”  &c.  (a%  uv  **,m,v*» c-<.)  We  give  the 
Greek  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  understand  it  bet- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


71 


zcr  than  we,  but  who  may  not  have  the  book  at 
hand. 

Now  we  do  not  say  that  evidently  in  the  passage 
the  presbyter  is  described  as  labouring  in  word  and 
doctrine.  Suppose  A  Presbyterian' s  translation  as 
proper  as  Air.  Whiston’s.  When  there  are  two  trans¬ 
lations  of  a  passage  in  any  book,  either  of  which  may 
be  adopted,  are  we  to  choose  that  in  conformity  with 
all  the  rest  of  the  book,  or  that  directly  opposed  to  the 
whole.  A  Presbyterian  his-self  would  surely  decide 
this  question  as  we  do.  No  man  in  his  senses  can 
do  otherwise. 

But  what  says  the  passage  as  A  Presbyterian  trans¬ 
lates  it?  Can  you  give  his  sense  to  the  word  when P 
The  plain  meaning  of  the  passage,  as  translated  by 
him  is,  “  when  (at  what  time)  the  presbyter  is  de- 
“  voted  to  his  calling  supply  his  wTants  more  amply.” 

After  all  the  proper  answer  is  this  :  No  quotation 
from  that  book  can  possibly  design  a  lay-elder;  that 
is,  a  presbyter  w7ho  had  not  a  right  to  preach  :  For 
the  whole  book,  as  w7e  shall  show  in  the  sequel,  con¬ 
siders  this  as  the  right  of  the  laity.  It  is  in  this  re¬ 
spect  as  unfortunate  a  quotation  as  that  from  Hilary. 

We  do  not  assert  that  the  universal  right  to  teach 
proves  that  a  presbyter’s  ordination  constituted  him 
a  teacher :  But  it  proves  that  he  could  not  be  desti¬ 
tute  of  the  right  to  teach. 

Strictly  speaking,  the  presbyter  was  ordained  to 
rule  in  a  congregation — to  take  care  of  the  church  of 
God.  And  this  included  a  particular  charge  of  that 
congregation  as  regarded  instruction.  He  might 
therefore  be  said  to  be  ordained  its  teacher.  Thus 
also  Timothy  and  Titus  had  in  charge  the  instruc¬ 
tion  of  those  to  whom  they  were  sent  to  ordain 
elders  :  And  thus  the  apostles  were  ordained  teach¬ 
ers  of  the  world,  as  well  as  universal  bishops. 

It  is  asked,  do  you  not  find  instituted  an  or¬ 
der  of  men  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  ?  Certainly 


72 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


not.  We  find  an  order  of  men  to  take  cat  e  of  the 
church  of  God,  The  order  of  teachers  includes  them 
and  all  Christians  capable. 

XIV.  “  It  cannot  be  shown  that  Ignatius,  by  his 
“  presbyters  and  presbytery,  means  any  thing  else 
“  than  a  bench  of  ruling  elders.”  This  grave  asser¬ 
tion  from  A  Presbyterian  will  lay  us  under  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  introducing  the  subject  below,  of  the  dif¬ 
ference  between  Ignatius  and  his  presbyters,  in  order 
effectually  to  get  clear  of  this  pretence..  If  it  were 
once  substantiated,  it  is  fatal  to  lay-teaching.  If  in 
the  apostolic  church  there  were  presbyters,  ordained 
not  to  teach ,  that  is,  having  no  right  to  teach,  but  to 
rule,  it  would  be  “  vain”  and  “  arrogant”  in  mere 
private  Christians  to  think  they  possessed  the  right : 
Harmless  as  the  old  man  seems,  he  is  a  dangerous 

enemv. 

* 

It  was  not  the  design  of  Ignatius  to  urge  either 
bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  or  faithful  to  teach. 
They  all  did  it:  No  one  questioned  the  right.  He 
labours  much  to  persuade  all  to  avoid  teachers  of 
falsehood.  But  we  do  find  proof  that  the  bishop 
taught.  It  is  accidental.  Writing  to  Polycarp,  he  says, 
u  Speak  to  every  one  as  God  shall  enable  thee.” — 
u  Say  to  my  sisters  that  they  love  the  Lord.” — 
u  Exhort  my  brethren  that  they  love  their  wives.” 
If  these,  out  of  one  epistle,  (which  do  not  certainly 
intend  public  preaching,)  be  not  evidence  that  the  bi¬ 
shop  taught,  then  according  to  the  fair  deduction  from 
A  Presbyterian's  sentiments,  we  are  without  proof 
that  these  early  bishops  taught.  u  Besides,”  says 
Ignatius,  “  the  more  one  sees  his  bishop  silent,  the 
“  more  let  him  revere  him.”  We  say  not  what  the 
interpolating  writer  meant :  But  we  know  that  if 
such  a  thing  could  be  said  of  a  presbyter  or  senior 
it  would  rejoice  A  Presbyterian's  heart. 

We  find,  however,  a  plain  proof  both  of  the  bishop 
and  presbyters  teaching.  u  Be  ye  united  to  your 


LAY-TEACHING. 


75 

iw  bishop,  and  those  who  preside  over  you,  to  be 
M  your  pattern  and  direction  in  the  way  to  immorta- 
u  lity.”  We  also  find,  as  we  think,  a  proof  that  the 
deacons  taught,  if  it  be  not  an  interpolation  of  a  later 
century.  He  calls  them  “  ministers  of  the  myste- 
w  ries  of  Jesus  Christ.”  Their  office  gave  them 
greater  boldness  in  preaching  the  faith  than  if  mere 
laymen  ;  of  whose  preaching,  however,  we  also  find 
a  proof.  u  A  man — it  is  good  to  teach  if  what  he 
w  says  he  does  likewise.” 

There  are  proofs  however  in  these  epistles  more 
decisive.  Take  one  :  The  presbyter  could  conse¬ 
crate  the  eucharist.  u  That  eucharist — which  is 
“  either  offered  by  the  bishop,  or  by  him  to  whom 
u  the  bishop  has  given  his  consent.”  Do  you  say 
the  bishop  might  give  his  consent  to  one  below  a 
presbyter  ?  It  is  the  same  to  us.  If  all  were  compe¬ 
tent,  to  talk  of  lay-elder  is  nonsense.  If  the  deacon 
was  competent,  surely  his  superior  was.  But  we 
know,  from  all  antiquity,  that  the  presbyter  was  the 
person  who  had  the  inherent  right.  We  do  not  now 
speak  of  cases  of  necessity.  All  antiquity  shows  us 
the  presbyter  of  Ignatius  could  do  whatever  he  could. 

This  pretence  of  presbyters  ordained  not  to  teach 
deserves  however  one  or  two  quotations  from  other 
quarters.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  Bishop  Stil- 
lingfleet,  thus  defines  a  presbyter :  “  A  presbyter  is 
“  one  that  is  ordained  and  appointed  for  the  instruc- 
“  tion  of  others.”  Origen,  in  the  same,  says  :  u  Every 
“  bishop,  and  every  presbyter  and  deacon  instructs 
u  us,  and,  instructing,  loudly  reproves  us  in  severe 
“  language.”  The  reader  will  see  in  the  sequel  a 
quotation  from  Chrysostom,  proving  the  same  thing. 
How  can  any  man  believe  that  some  of  these  presby¬ 
ters  were  restricted  at  their  ordination  ? 

A  quotation  will  be  given  hereafter  from  a  chapter 
of  Socrates  S.  in  which  he  describes  the  different  cus- 

G 


74 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


toms  of  different  Christian  churches.  His  object  was 
to  show  the  want  of  uniformity.  Presbyters  in  the 
church  of  Alexandria,  he  says,  did  not  preach  from 
the  time  of  Arius .  He  mentions  it  as  a  peculiarity  of 
that  church.  The  statement  of  the  fact  is  proof  that 
he  knew  of  no  other  church  where  the  same  thing 
existed.  He  tells  us  when  in  the  fourth  century  it 
commenced,  and  what  it  arose  from.  Is  it  conceiva¬ 
ble  that  Socrates  S.  would  gravely  tell  us  of  a  remark¬ 
able  peculiarity  existing  at  Alexandria,  wffien  in 
every,  or  most,  or  many,  or,  if  you  please,  any  other 
churches,  the  same  thing  had  always  existed  ? 

XV.  The  distinction  between  bishop  and  presbyter 
which  obtained  and  was  increasing  as  we  have  seen 
at  an  early  period  of  the  church,  has  a  great  influ¬ 
ence  in  perverting  men’s  ideas  on  the  subject  of  lay- 
teaching.  Bishop  Potter  answers  Tertullian’s  facts 
of  /az/-priests  by  the  succession  of  bishops.  And  A 
Presbyterian ,  in  order  to  make  the  distinction  an¬ 
swer  his  purpose,  has  only  to  assert  that  the  ancient 
presbyter  who  could  do  whatever  a  bishop  could ,  was 
a  lay-elder.  Now,  if  the  elder  at  this  period  was 
mute,  how  much  more  the  other  lay-people. 

Yet  “  A  Presbyterian”  sayTs  this  lay-elder  might  be 
requested  to  teach  if  the  bishop  was  fatigued,  &c. 

The  canons  never  found  the  silence  of  the  presby¬ 
ter,  when  and  where  he  was  at  length  silenced,  on 
this  ground.  At  that  period ,  if  the  bishop  were  to 
lose  his  senses  or  speech ,  the  presbyter  must  not  per¬ 
form  ecclesiastical  offices  in  his  presence .  And  the 
reader  is  requested  to  mark  this  phrase.  We  will 
have  hereafter  several  proofs  of  the  spirit  of  it.  It 
was  (when  canons  to  such  effect  had  followed  customs 
existing  before  them)  the  presence  of  the  clergyman 
that  forbad  the  lay7man,  the  presence  of  the  bishop 
that  forbad  the  presbyter,  and  the  presence  of  the 
presbyter  that  forbad  the  deacon.  So  wholly7  erro- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


75 


neons,  so  totally  opposed  to  fact  is  an  odd  conceit  of 
44  A  Presbyterian.”  If  we  understand  him,  he  means 
to  say  that  the  ancient  presbyters  in  the  three  first 
centuries  generally  were  mute  elders,  but  on  acciden¬ 
tal  occasions  requested  by  a  bishop  to  speak  “  in  his 
“presence”  These  are  his  words.  The  whole  is 
mere  assertion.  But  the  phrase  in  his  presence  is 
an  outrage  on  all  antiquity.  It  is  the  very  manner  of 
expression  in  constant  use  as  soon  in  the  early  ages 
as  the  presbyter  and  others  began  to  be  at  all  re¬ 
stricted.  Not  in  the  presence  of  bishops  or  clergy, 
says  antiquity.  It  was  in  the  presence  alone ,  says 
“  A  Presbyterian.”  Why  ?  He  wished  to  have  the 
presbyter  of  Ignatius  where  the  bishop  could  “stop” 
or  “correct”  him,  or  u forbid  him  to  officiate  again.” 
The  most  that  interpolated  Ignatius  asks  for  his 
bishop  is  that  the  presbyters  will  not  act  without  his 
knowledge  or  approbation  in  consecrating  the  sacra¬ 
ment  and  other  episcopal  offices. 

That  “  A  Presbyterian ”  really  designs  to  represent 
the  ancient  presbyters  generally ,  (we  might  perhaps 
have  said  almost  universally ,)  as  lay-elders,  (as  those 
seniores  not  of  the  clergy ,)  we  think  unquestionable, 
especially  from  the  Thoughts  on  Lay-preaching.  He 
speaks  of  the  pastors  of  the  congregations  as  in  cases 
of  fatigue,  sickness,  or  indisposition  to  preach,  under 
a  necessity  of  applying  to  a  lay-elder  or  even  a  lay- 
deacon. 

This,  and  other  uses  made  of  the  supposed  original 
distinction  between  bishop  and  presbyter,  render  a 
correct  view  of  it  essentially  necessary  in  a  defence 
of  lay-teaching.  Suppose  we  were  not  annoyed  with 
this  odd  conceit  of  the  ancient  presbyter  being  a 
lay-elder:  Yet  if  there  were  in  the  apostolic  days 
only  one  governor  in  a  congregation,  of  powers  vastly 
superior  to  those  of  the  other  presbyters,  and  strictly 
speaking,  the  sole  governor ,  the  existence  of  other 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


76 

assisting  teachers  in  that  congregation  than  the  pres¬ 
byters  and  deacons  would  seem  less  probable  than  if 
we  conceive  of  a  college  of  equal  presbyter-bishops 
in  each  church.  The  presbyters  not  bishops  would 
seem  to  occupy  the  very  place  of  lay-teachers.  Hence 
“  A  Presbyterian,”  if  they  cannot  be  lay-elders ,  will 
have  them  curates .  But  if  besides  the  superintend- 
ants  of  the  charities  of  the  congregation,  there  were, 
in  the  first  age,  also  just  as  many  presbyter-bishops 
as  were  necessary ,  all  employed  in  fulfilling  the  active 
duties  not  only  of  governing,  but  also  of  counselling, 
and  teaching  in  public  and  private,  administering 
baptism  and  the  eucharist,  exhorting,  comforting, 
and  building  up  the  church,  and  this  in  an  age  of 
violent  opposition  when  these  duties  were  not  easily 
discharged,  then  it  were  more  probable ,  had  we  no 
other  evidence,  that  they  would  avail  themselves  of 
the  aid  of  private  Christians,  in  such  acts  as  all  Chris¬ 
tians  were  competent  to  perform.  While  the  chief 
pastor  was  only  the  oldest  or  most  eminent  among 
governors ,  equal  in  authority,  there  would  seldom 
be  such  a  superfluous  swarm  as  to  render  the  lay- 
teaching  unnecessary. 

We  do  not  admit  that  in  either  case  the  question 
of  lay-teaching  is  much  affected.  But  do  we  not  see , 
that  lay-teaching,  or  what  is  much  the  same,  gene¬ 
rally  accompanies  a  plurality  of  teaching  pastors,  in 
one  church  ? 

That  there  was  no  difference  between  bishops  and 
presbyters,  as  far  as  sacred  history  goes,  is  really  as 
palpable  in  the  New  Testament  as  it  could  well  be. 
“To  the  saints — at  Philippi — with  the  bishops  and 
M  deacons.”  Here  is  the  style  of  that  period.  Can 
any  thing  different  be  produced  from  the  Scriptures? 
We  do  not  deny  that  the  term  “  angel”  in  a  well 
known  passage  in  the  Revelations,  may  mean  the 
oldest  pastor  still  capable  of  active  exertion,  who 


LAY-TEACHING. 


77 


would  of  course  be  the  chief  ruler  or  chairman  of 
the  presbytery  and  church.  We  do  not  suppose  the 
natural  order  of  precedency  was  disturbed  during 
the  frst  century  any  where. 

For  the  proof  that  there  was  no  difference  between 
bishops  and  presbyters  as  regards  u  order”  in  any 
part  of  the  two  first  centuries,  (in  addition  to  those 
we  shall  adduce,)  we  refer  to  other  quotations  in 
writers  against  and  for  episcopacy.  If  the  reader 
will  take  the  trouble  to  look  at  Mr.  Bingham,  (a 
learned  episcopalian,)  Dr.  Campbell,  (a  candid  pres- 
byterian,)  and  Bishop  Stillingfleet  and  Lord  King, 
(of  neither  sentiment,)  he  will  perhaps  have  all  the 
quotations  in  any  later  writers.  There  is  much  va¬ 
luable  information  in  Bishop  Potter. 

The  proofs  are  plain  and  irresistible  that  down  to 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  the  bishop  and  his 
presbyters  were  considered  as  of  the  same  order. 
And  down  to  about  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
the  bishop  and  his  presbyters  officiated  in  one  con¬ 
gregation  or  parish,  whether  in  Rome  or  in  an  ob¬ 
scure  village.  And  this  was  the  case  generally  long 
after  the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
universally  till  then  with  a  few  exceptions. 

The  great  number  of  bishoprics  in  the  first  ages, 
demonstrate  that  the  apostolic  practice  continued 
long,  of  ordaining  bishops,  (to  use  the  expression  of 
Clemens,)  “  both  in  country  and  city.”  The  bishops 
of  Antioch,  in  the  third  century,  had  adjacent  city  and 
country  bishops.  Zoticus  was  u  bishop  of  the  village 
u  of  Comane.”  These  last  quotations  are  from  lord 
King,  who  adds  :  u  Many  of  these  bishops  who  were 
“  assembled  at  Carthage,  to  the  number  of  four- 
u  score  and  seven,  had  obscure  villages  for  their 
u  seats,  since  we  find  not  the  least  notice  of  them  in — - 
M  the  old  geographers.” 

That  down  till  a  late  period  all  the  congregation 
(and  even  in  places  where  there  were  distinct  con- 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


78 

gregations  in  the  parish,  on  some  solemn  occasions,) 
met  (as  many  as  could,)  for  the  performance  of  re¬ 
ligious  services,  in  one  place,  is  most  unquestionable. 
Our  quotations  from  Ignatius  and  others,  are  de¬ 
cisive  on  this  subject. 

A  Presbyterian  admits  that  every  bishop  was  the 
pastor  of  one  church.  But  he  has  confused  his  two 
volumes,  ( and  the  subject ,)  by  the  manner  in  which 
he  avoids  the  result.  At  one  time,  his  presbyters  are 
lay-elders,  at  another,  persons  in  full  orders.  He 
changes  the  notion  just  as  it  suits  him.  We  make 
one  quotation  from  himself  to  show  that  he  admits 
that  a  all  elders  who  xaere  connected  with  a  bishop 
“  are  represented  as  belonging  to  the  congregation 
u  with  himP  And  we  make  another  to  show  this , 
and  that  these  were  teaching  presbyters.  We  quote 
from  a  quotation  of  A  Presbyterian .  It  is  from 
the  “  Constitutions.” 

u  On  both  sides  of — the  bishop — let  the  presbyters 
u  sit — let  the  presbyters  exhort — and  last — the  bi- 
41  shop.  Let  the  door-keepers  stand  at  the  church 
u  doors.”  If  this  do  not  convince  the  most  stubborn 
opposer  of  the  presbytery  of  teaching  elders  of 
one  congregation  we  despair.  A  Presbyterian  did 
not  quote  it  for  this  purpose.  It  is  in  those  churches 
among  u  presbyters,  exhorting  one  by  onef  A  Pres¬ 
byterian  discovered  a  mute  presbyter.  This  quota¬ 
tion,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  it  of  the  universal 
church. 

The  numbers  of  the  church,  in  Jerusalem,  pre¬ 
sent  a  difficulty  to  some.  Nor  can  we  tell  how  far 
they  attended  the  temple  and  synagogue  service,  and 
how  the  bishops  and  teaching  brethren  communica¬ 
ted  instruction,  peculiarly  Christian,  to  small  sec¬ 
tions.  But  we  know  that  on  certain  occasions,  they 
met  in  one  place,  explain  it  as  we  may. 

“  They  were  all,  with  one  accord,  in  Solomon’s 

porch.” 


LAY-TEACHING. 


79 


iC  And  the  apostles  and  elders  came  together  for 
44  to  consider  of  this  matter — Then  all  the  multi- 
44  tude  kept  silence.” 

If  we  had  no  information  on  the  subject,  we  would 
conclude  what  we  learn  from  these  passages. 

44  Daily  in  the  temple  and  in  every  house  they 
44  ceased  not  to  teach.” 

44  The  home — where  many  were  gathered  together, 
44  praying.”  44  And  he,”  (that  is,  Peter)  44  said,  Go 
44  shew  these  things  to  James  and  to  the”  other 
44  brethren .” 

They  had  no  other  places  of  meeting  than  some  of 
the  brethren’s  houses. 

In  the  second  century,  this  parish,  like  others,  had 
one  bishop  and  one  altar.  The  bishop  was  chosen 
by  the  members  of  that  church .  And  there  were  cir¬ 
cumjacent  bishops.  No  conclusions  in  favour  of 
councils  or  episcopacy  can  be  drawn  from  its  state 
in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  when  the  formation  of 
several  distinct  congregations  was  impracticable. 
They  undoubtedly  received  the  eucharist,  as  many 
as  could,  whenever  an  opportunity  offered.  After 
the  number  of  the  men  was  above  jive  thousand ,  they 
are  represented  as  one  congregation — as  assembled 
together — as  the  multitude — of  one  heart — as  all — in 
Solomon’s  porch.  Every  thing  was  done  with  the 
multitude  or  whole  church. 

In  any  part  of  the  three  first  centuries,  presbyters 
could  discharge  44  all  those  offices  to  which  a  bishop 
44  had  been  obliged  if — present.”  44  A  bishop  preach- 
44  ed— baptized— confirmed--excommunicated,  absolv- 
bt  ed  and  ordained. — So  did  a  presbyter. — The  only 
44  difference  was  in  degree — none  at  all  in  order,” 
says  lord  King. 

With  regard  to  his  quotations,  it  is  to  be  remark¬ 
ed,  that  those  establishing  the  equality  of  order,  are 
of  the  earliest  antiquity,  commencing  with  the  New 
Testament,  which  admits  of  no  difference  whatever  : 


80 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


But  the  quotations,  as  we  shall  remark  again,  de¬ 
monstrating,  as  he  calls  it,  a  difference  in  degree, 
commence  no  earlier  than  Cyprian’s  time. 

That  bishops  and  presbyters  were  of  the  same 
order,  in  all  places,  throughout  the  latter  half  of  the 
first  three  hundred  years,  ought  not  to  be  asserted 
without  some  qualification.  In  Cyprian’s  time — the 
middle  of  the  third  century — the  difference  was  con¬ 
siderable  ;  and  was  rapidly  increasing.  The  pres¬ 
byter  thought  he  had  the  inherent  right  to  perform, 
seldom  actually  performed,  some  parts  of  the  pas¬ 
toral  office  during  the  last  half  of  the  third  century. 
Still,  in  general ,  he  could  do ,  and  in  many  places  did, 
whatever  a  bishop  could  perform. 

The  reader  will  please  recollect  the  language  of 
Firmilian,  quoted  above.  And  Cyprian,  in  exile, 
exhorts  his  clergy  to  w  discharge  their  own  and  his 
u  office  too,”  and  again,  u  in  his  stead ,  to  perform 
u  those  offices,”  &c. 

The  distinction  existing,  (almost  imperceptibly,) 
from  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and 
gradually  increasing,  in  Cyprian’s  time  was  con¬ 
siderable. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century,  it  was 
strikingly  marked  by  two  things,  a  second  ordination 
of  bishops  by  bishops ,  and  the  limited  powers  of  the 
presbyter.  It  may  be  called  instalment  or  consecra¬ 
tion,  but  this  second  ordination  was  more  striking 
than  the  first.  The  presbyter  was  also,  we  admit,  in 
the  third  century,  especially  in  the  latter  part  of  it, 
very  much  at  the  bishop’s  disposal.  He  was  not  so 
fully  a  pastor  as  he  who  had  the  charge  both  of  cler¬ 
gy  and  people.  But  we  cannot  admit  that,  even  at 
this  period,  the  presbyter  was  not  really  a  pastor. 
To  say  in  general  of  the  three  first  centuries,  that  the 
presbyter  had  not  a  pastoral  charge ,  is  a  most  un¬ 
warrantable  assertion.  This  proposition  is  destructive 


LAY-TEACHING. 


81 


of  truth  :  And  it  appears  to  us,  that  it  is  as  contrary 
to  fact  and  evidence  as  another,  That  the  presbyter 
was  not  ordained  for  a  particular  church.  One  or 
two  exceptions  to  a  universal  rule,  prove  nothing. 
The  reader  will  recollect  how  evidently,  even  in  the 
fourth  century,  the  church  still  considered  all  the 
clergy  as  belonging  to  some  one  parish.  That  the 
presbyter  had  a  charge ,  and  was  ordained  for  a 
particular  church,  we  will  prove  presently. 

XVI.  The  re-ordination  of  bishops  is  a  pretty 
plain  subject.  When  the  difference  between  the 
chairman  and  the  other  members  of  the  presbytery 
of  a  congregation  became  considerable,  and  espe¬ 
cially  when  it  happened  that  intriguing  juniors  oc¬ 
cupied  this  situation  over  elders,  ceremonies  (useless 
to  the  oldest  man  who  took  the  seat  which  naturally 
belonged  to  him,)  would  be  extremely  desirable  to 
confirm  the  rights  of  the  unscriptural  sovereign  of 
the  church.  The  bishop  was  not,  however,  in  all 
places,  even  in  the  third  century ,  thus  placed  u  in  his 
u  bishopric  by  imposition  of  hands,”  of  other  bishops 
than  his  co-presbyters. 

Besides,  ordination  in  the  New  Testament  church, 
and  for  some  time  after,  was  not  exactly  what  some 
think  it  now.  It  is  evident  that  it  was  applied  on 
very  different  occasions,  and  more  than  once  to  the 
same  persons.  We  do  not  deny  men’s  right  to  re¬ 
strict  the  action  to  the  modern  use.  But  let  them 
not  reason  as  if  it  had  been  always  thus  appropria¬ 
ted. 

Ananias  ordained  Paul.  To  see  the  solemnitv  of 
this  ordination,  connect  the  ix.  chap,  of  the  Acts, 
with  the  xxii.  u  And  Ananias  went  his  way  and  en- 
“  tered  into  the  house,  and  putting  his  hands  on  him , 
u  said,  brother  Saul,  the  Lord — hath  sent  me  that 
“  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight  and  be  filled  with 
a  the  Holy  Ghost . — The  God  of  our  fathers  hath 
tc  chosen  thee  that  thou  shouldest  know  his  will. — 


82 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


44  Thou  shalt  be  his  witness. — Arise  and  be  bap' 
44  tized  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name 
44  of  the  Lord .” 

The  prophets  and  teachers  of  Antioch  afterwards 
ordained  him  and  Barnabas  to  a  particular  mission 
to  the  Gentiles — recommended  them  to  the  grace  of 
God — for  the  work  which  they  fulflled.  And  after 
this,  Paul  chose  Silas  and  departed  from  the  same 
place,  on  a  similar  tour,  44  being  recommended  by 
44  the  brethren  unto  the  grace  of  God.” 

The  first  deacons  of  the  church,  at  Jerusalem, 
were  ordained  to  the  superintendance  of  its  chari¬ 
ties.  And  a  brother  was  ordained  of  the  churches 
to  travel  with  Paul — ordained,  no  doubt,  with  prayer 
and  the  elevation  of  hands  of  the  brethren,  and  the 
imposition  of  such  of  those  hands  as  were  near  him, 
if  he  was  present  when  thus  ordained. 

The  church  of  the  fourth  century  had  various 
modes  of  ordination.  The  acolyth  was  ordained  by 
the  delivery  of  a  candlestick  and  an  empty  flagon, 
the  reader  by  giving  him  the  book  of  the  gospels, 
the  porter  by  handing  him  the  keys. 

We  speak  of  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  hands. 
We  do  not  mean,  when  we  speak  of  deacons  being 
ordained,  that  the  apostles  shook  hands  with  them. 
We  know  not  by  what  authority  such  changes  as 
this  last  and  others  were  introduced  by  the  presby- 
terian  church,  and  earlier  churches.  When  we  speak 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas  being  ordained  not  to  the  gos¬ 
pel-ministry  in  general  or  to  a  pastoral  charge,  but 
to  a  particular  missionary  duty,  and  when  we  speak 
of  the  ordination  of  deacons,  we  mean  recommend¬ 
ing  them  to  the  grace  of  God,  by  prayer,  accompa¬ 
nied  by  that  holy  rite  so  rational  and  natural,  where 
the  prayer  refers  to  one  or  two  individuals.  It  was 
just  as  natural  on  such  occasions,  whether  mira¬ 
culous  powers  were  conveyed  or  not,  to  impose  the 
hands,  as  for  a  parent  thus  to  bless  his  children. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


S3 

In  the  beginning  when  on  the  demise  of  the 
oldest  of  the  session  of  bishops  of  the  congregation, 
the  next  in  order  took  his  place  in  the  midst  of  his 
brethren,  perhaps  as  a  step  to  martyrdom,  certainly 
to  greater  exposure  to  danger,  is  it  not  certain,  that 
some  other  presbyter  would  on  an  occasion  so  solemn 
recommend  him  to  the  grace  of  God .  And  while  the 
junior  bishops  crowded  round  him,  is  it  not  probable 
they  would  (as  was  then  customary  even  to  su¬ 
periors,  as  in  the  case  of  the  teachers  of  Antioch 
and  Paul,)  lay  their  hands  on  his  head.  This  may 
have  been  the  origin  of  the  consecration  of  bishops. 
Let  the  reader  compare  it  with  the  practice  of  the 
Alexandrian  church  below*. 

Attach,  however,  all  the  mystery  you  please  to 
ordination :  Degrade  it  from  a  religious  and  rational 
action  to  something  inexplicable  :  When  is  it  known 
to  have  become  customary  to  place  a  bishop  u  in  his 
“  bishopric  by  imposition  of  hands'”  of  bishops  of 
other  congregations?  We  have  seen  no  quotations 
establishing  the  practice,  higher  than  the  middle  of 
the  third  century.  It  probably  existed  before  this, 
but  not  long.  We  may  be  certain  it  did  not  com¬ 
mence  till  some  time  after  the  appropriation  of  the 
title  of  bishop  to  the  senior  presbyter. 

XVII.  It  would  seem  to  us  among  the  plainest 
things  in  ecclesiastical  history,  that  the  whole  college 
of  bishops  ordained  over  a  congregation  were  or¬ 
dained  to  rule  that  congregation  particularly .  This 
was  the  case  till  long  after  the  end  of  the  third  cen¬ 
tury.  In  the  fifth  century,  pope  and  council  opposed 
ordinations  for  no  church .  Leo  (We  admire  the 
man,  though  we  condemn  the  faults  that  we  doubt 
not  w*ere  forgiven  through  that  Redeemer  whom 
he  sincerely  loved.  Leo)  declared  them  not  merely 
irregular  but  sham  ordinations.  The  council  of  Chal- 
cedon  declared  them  void . 

Respecting  the  first  age  there  is  no  doubt.  Can 


84 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


language  be  more  explicit  than  Paul's  to  the  presby¬ 
tery  of  the  Ephesian  congregation?  He  directs  them 
to  feed  the  church  over  which  they  wTere  all  made 
bishops. 

People  who  are  little  acquainted  with  this  subject, 
are  easily  satisfied  here  with  the  notion  of  several 
congregations  now  in  Ephesus.  But  the  ancients,  a 
century  after  the  meeting  of  the  apostle  and  these 
bishops,  (who  did  not  wish  him  to  have  met  presby¬ 
ters,)  knew  well  this  was  not  the  case.  They  there¬ 
fore  supposed  the  bishops  of  neighbouring  Asian 
congregations  to  have  collected.  But  we  see  it  was 
an  erroneous  supposition.  For  they  were  the  pres¬ 
byters  of  the  Ephesian  church. 

To  show  the  rash  and  hazardous  nature  of  A 
Presbyterian's  assertions,  take  one  instance.  The 
inspired  history  tells  us  there  was  a  church  at  Ephe¬ 
sus.  A  Presbyterian  tells  us  there  were  several — 
because  there  were  several  bishops  there.  Now,  to 
convince  those  who  hesitate  between  these  two  au¬ 
thorities,  let  us  hear  Ignatius  to  this  church.  In 
this  respect  the  larger  and  smaller  epistles  agree. 
No  one  here  suspects  interpolation,  and  they  corres¬ 
pond  with  the  New  Testament.  “  Come  together 
“  into  the  same  place.”  “Your  church  of  Ephesus 
“  so  famous.”  “  Ye  meet  fully  together  in  the  same 
“  place.”  “  Obey  your  bishop  and  the  presbytery.” 
“  Breaking  one  and  the  same  bread.”  And  the  point, 
as  the  reflecting  reader  will  see,  is  proved,  whether 
this  be  the  production  of  the  second  or  third  century. 
If  of  the  age  of  Ignatius,  it  is  proved.  If  of  the 
latter  part  of  the  third,  it  shows  the  decided  judg¬ 
ment  of  antiquity  and  tradition  as  to  a  historical  fact. 
And  the  judgment  of  the  latter  end  of  the  second 
century  was  the  same. 

With  regard  to  these  presbyters  being  rulers 
of  the  same  order  as  the  bishop  :  “  Let  the  flock 
“  of  Christ  be  in  peace,”  says  Clemens  to  the 


LAY-TEACHING. 


85 


Corinthian  congregation,  44  with  the  elders  that 
44  are  set  over  it .  ”  It  is  not  questioned  whether 
his  elders  were  bishops.  44  Thou  shalt  read,”  says 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  u  in  this  city  with  the 
44  elders  of  the  church .”  Again  :  44  Say  to  those  who 
44  are  over  the  church .”  Again  :  44  Bishops,  that  is 
44  governors  of  the  churches,  then  such  as  have  been 
44  set  over  inferior  ministries  and  have  protected  the 
44  poor .”  In  this  last  quotation  are  only  governor- 
bishops  and  deacons.  44  Being  subject ,”  says  Poly¬ 
carp,  44  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons .”  Again :  44  Let 
44  the  presbyter  be — not  severe  in  judgment.”  None 
of  the  apostolic  fathers,  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  knew  of  any  other  presbyters  than 
bishops.  Even  Cyprian,  in  the  third  century,  as 
quoted  by  Lord  King,  calls  his  presbyters  44  pastors” 
and  44  presidents.” 

Says  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet,  speaking  of  himself  and  his  fellow-presbyters, 
44  We  are  pastors  and  rulers  of  the  churches.”  Says 
Chrysostom  in  the  same,  44  There  is  r.o  great  matter 
44  of  difference  between  a  bishop  and  presbyters,  for 
44  these  likewise  have  the  instruction  and  charge  of 
44  the  church  committed  to  them.”  This  last  quota¬ 
tion  is  beyond  our  time.  But  we  give  it  to  show  that 
the  sentiment  continued  long  in  the  church. 

We  repeat  the  observation  above.  The  quotations 
easily  found  in  different  writers,  establishing  the  go¬ 
vernment  of  presbyter-bishops  in  each  congregation, 
are  of  high  antiquity — before  the  middle  of  the  se¬ 
cond  century.  During  this  period -there  is  no  other 
difference  perceived  between  the  chairman  and  his 
colleagues.  And  even  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century,  the  usual  quotations  show  the  difference  to 
have  been  very  trifling.  And  from  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  the  third  age  to  Cyprian,  the  difference 
would  not  trouble  us.  For  if  the  presbyters  could 
assist  the  bishop  when  he  was  at  home,  and  perform 

H 


86 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


his  duty  and  their  cavil  when  he  was  not,  we  would 
be  contented. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  we  consider  the  pas¬ 
sages  in  Ignatius  that  elevate  the  bishop  too  much, 
as  evident  corruptions  of  the  text .  We  make  no 
apology  for  following  learned  men  in  this  opinion. 
W e  claim  the  liberty  of  thinking  correctly.  Before 
we  read  the  epistles  wTe  thought  differently. 

An  unprejudiced  man  who  would  read  Ignatius 
and  the  other  apostolical  fathers  before  and  after 
him,  could  hardly  avoid  coming  to  the  same  con¬ 
clusion,  even  if  he  remained  ignorant  of  the  suspi¬ 
cious  circumstances  of  these  epistles.  The  language 
of  the  suspected  passages,  connected  with  different 
subjects,  is  not  that  of  the  two  first  centuries.  It 
is  totally  different  from  that  of  his  predecessors  and 
from  Polycarp. 

And  if  allowed  to  be  genuine,  says  Dr.  Campbell, 
it  only  proves  that  the  distinction  between  bishop 
and  presbyter  commenced  about  thirty  years  earlier 
in  Antioch  and  in  Asia  Minor  than  in  other  parts  of 
the  Christian  world. 

To  say  nothing  of  other  passages  quoted  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  this  difference:  You  meet  with 
nothing  like  these  in  the  other  apostolic  men.  w  We 
“  ought  to  look  upon  the  bishop  even  as  we  would  do 
u  upon  the  Lord  himself.”  u  Your  bishop  presiding 
u  in  the  place  of  God.” 

If  any  one  considers  Ignatius  as  altogether  a  pro¬ 
duction  of  later  times,  the  total  dissimilarity  in  man¬ 
ner  and  difference  of  sentiment  between  these  epis¬ 
tles  and  those  of  the  other  apostolical  fathers,  will 
at  least  form  an  apology  for  his  opinion.  It  is  the 
same  to  our  Defence.  For  about  the  apostolical  ages 
there  is  no  doubt.  The  interesting  question  is,  How 
soon  did  priests  begin  to  insult  lay-teachers  ?  Igna¬ 
tius,  either  of  the  second,  third,  or  fourth  century,  is 
proof  in  our  favour. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


8  7 


These  passages,  however,  of  the  martyr,  which,  if 
'  not  interpolations,  prove,  that  in  his  time,  in  some 
places,  none  could,  without  the  approbation  of  the 
bishop,  baptize  or  offer  the  eucharist  in  his  congre¬ 
gation ,  do  not  at  all  lessen  the  proof  that  presbyters 
were  as  really  rulers  of  such  church  as  the  bishop 
was,  though  his  powers  were  more  ample  than  theirs 
as  the  chief  or  father  among  the  rulers,  without 
whose  knowledge,  (as  far  as  he  wished  to  be  con¬ 
sulted,)  nothing  was  done.  w  Obey  your  bishop  and 
u  the  presbytery ,”  says  Ignatius.  u  Neither  do  any 
“  thing  without  your  bishop  and  presbyters .”  u  Be 
a  united  to  your  bishop  and  those  who  preside  over 
u  you”  Had  these  presbyters  no  pastoral  charge  ? 

We  beg  the  reader  just  to  remember  Paul’s  lan¬ 
guage  to  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus — that  the  ancient 
church  hated  wandering  clergy — that  long  after  Ig¬ 
natius,  ordination  of  a  ruler  for  no  church  was  de¬ 
clared  to  be  no  ordination — that  a  few  exceptions  do 
not  set  aside  a  rule  universal  from  the  beginning — 
that  the  ancient  presbyter  as  well  as  bishop  rose 
out  of  his  church  and  was  ordained  to  rule  over  it — 
that  he  was  unquestionably  as  late  as  Cyprian’s  time 
— in  the  third  century — a  president  of  it. — And  to 
consider  then  what  foundation  there  is  for  this  source 
of  error — the  delusive  proposition — u  The  presbytei 
w  had  no  pastoral  charge .” 

A  Presbyterian  has  followed  an  eminent  man,  and 
adopted  his  language  without  attending  to  his  restric¬ 
tions.  And  this  is  just  the  portion  of  that  writer’s 
book  where  it  is  most  necessary  to  distinguish  and 
guard. 

Lord  King,  however,  is  clear  though  incorrect. 
He  says  tcthe  presbyter  had  no  parish .”  But  he 
admits  that  he  was  a  bishop  of  a  congregation .  The 
bishops  of  Ephesus  are  Lord  King’s  presbyters.  So 
are  Cyprian’s  pastors .  He  expresses  his  proper  sen¬ 
timent  when  he  says  “  the  presbyter  could  not  per- 


tv 


88 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  form  any  part  of  his  pastoral  office  without  the  per- 
u  mission  of  the  bishop.” 

When  Lord  King  says  that  the  presbyter  was  at 
liberty  either  to  serve  that  church  where  he  was  or¬ 
dained,  or  others,  he  proves  it  only  by  two  cases  of 
the  third  century.  If  you  connect  them  with  vague 
ordination,  they  are  mere  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule,  against  the  infraction  of  which  the  church 
loudly  protested. 

If  you  consider  them  as  instances  of  translation  of 
clergymen,  they  only  prove,  (if  they  do  prove  it,) 
that  it  existed  in  the  third  century  in  these  two  cases. 
And  the  ordination  of  Origen,  (one  of  them,)  by 
another  church,  was  condemned  by  his  bishop.  Nor 
do  we  deny  that  in  some  cases  it  might  be  justified. 
Whatever  it  proves,  Lord  King  can  be  understood 
as  speaking  of  no  higher  period  than  the  third  cen¬ 
tury.  The  key  to  his  book  is  that  which  he  has  given 
ns .  It  is  unfair  to  him  to  interpret  him  otherwise. 
w  Some  practices  and  customs  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
u  cedent  treatise  were  not  from  the  first — but  after- 
“  wards  introduced,  and  others  might — be — only 
a  followed  in  some  particular  churches.”  He  then 
adds  a  list  of  the  fathers  cited,  and  their  ages,  that 
we  w  may  guess  at  the  time,”  &c. 

When,  therefore,  Lord  King  quotes  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  and  Clemens,  respecting  bishops  in  each  con¬ 
gregation  ;  Cyprian,  respecting  his  presidents  and 
pastors ;  Origen,  respecting  governors ;  we  must, 
agreeably  to  this  key,  understand  him  that  at  first 
presbyters  were  co-bishops — in  the  third  century, 
before  Cyprian’s  time,  governors  and  pastors — and 
in  the  end  of  this  age,  in  some  particular  churches , 
mere  assistant  curates.  It  would  have  been  more 
proper  to  refer  curates  to  the  fourth  century. 

We  admit  that  he  supposed  there  was  always  a 
distinction,  and  that  the  co-bishops  always  were  the 


LAY-TEACHING. 


89 

assistants,  as  he  explains  it,  of  the  senior  bishop,  or 
that  he  so  expresses  himself. 

He  is  certainly,  however,  in  an  absurd  error,  when 
in  order  to  Jinish  a  system  for  the  three  first  centuries, 
he  calls  the  other  bishops  of  Philippi  the  assistants 
cf  the  senior.  But  A  Presbyterian  is  much  more 
erroneous,  when  in  order  to  get  clear  of  what  he  dis¬ 
likes,  he  denies  in  the  face  of  antiquity  that  they 
were  a  session  of  one  congregation,  and  asserts  flatly 
and  according  to  the  common  understanding  of  the 
proposition,  the  presbyters  “  had  no  pastoral  charge, 
u  but  acted  the  part  of  assistants  or  curates  to  the 
u  bishop.” 

Corrupted  Ignatius  is  done  with  caution.  He  does 
not  give  a  great  deal  too  much  power  to  the  bishop. 
The  presbytery  must  act  in  concert.  And  in  order 
to  derive  the  advantages  of  a  senior  presbyter,  he 
must  be  the  centre  of  information.  As  far  as  he 
wishes  he  must  know  every  congregational  occur¬ 
rence.  Is  it  not  thus  that  some  eminent  pastors  now 
effect  so  much  practical  good  in  the  numerous  dis¬ 
tinct  societies  of  their  own  congregation  ? 

The  nature  of  the  deacon’s  authority  is  obvious. 
The  quotation  above  from  Hermas  corresponds  ex¬ 
actly  with  the  New  Testament.  They  would  how¬ 
ever  generally,  as  we  have  seen,  be  teachers.  For 
all  Christians  possessed  the  right,  but  especially  the 
officers  of  the  church. 

XVIII.  It  is  evident  that  there  would  almost 
always  in  each  church  be  one  pastor  more  re¬ 
spectable  on  some  account  than  the  others.  Is  it  not 
so  now  ?  Where  do  you  see  collegiate  elders  living 
in  harmony,  and  one  is  not  allowed  by  the  other,  or 
others,  a  certain  precedence  ?  Nothing  of  the  kind  is 
easier  to  account  for,  than  the  preservation  of  the 
names  of  some  eminent  bishops,  in  a  church,  while 
other  names,  forgotten,  have  not  been  handed  down 
to  posterity.  But  it  is  not  even  probable  that  these  emi- 

h  2 


90 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


nent  men,  whose  names  we  have,  always  literally 
succeeded  the  one  on  the  demise  of  his  predecessor. 
Clemens  was  bishop  of  Rome.  In  his  epistle  to  the 
Corinthian  congregation,  he  speaks  of  several  bishops 
in  one  church.  The  thing,  without  doubt,  existed 
in  his  own,  the  Roman,  parish.  The  practice  of 
his  time  was  bishops  and  deacons  in  each  parish. 
It  is  evident  from  the  New  Testament  as  well  as 
from  his  epistle . 

Now  suppose  the  eminent  man  who  is  named 
as  his  predecessor,  died  some  time  after  Cle¬ 
mens  was  a  Roman  bishop,  and  the  eminent  man 
who  is  named  as  his  successor,  was  in  the  col¬ 
lege  of  pastors  before  his  death,  we  still  have  a 
succession  of  bishops,  though  some  of  the  individu¬ 
als,  composing  a  particular  series,  were  in  part  con¬ 
temporaries,  and  ruled  with  other  co-pastors.  It  is 
very  probable  that  the  members  of  such  successions 
were  not  only  eminent  in  their  own  church,  but  were 
for  a  time  the  organ  of  the  presbytery  in  its  external 
relations.  Superior  age,  or  piety,  or  any  thing  else 
that  rendered  them  more  remarkable  than  others, 
would  also  add  to  their  celebrity,  by  making  them 
the  particular  objects  of  persecution.  This  alone 
would  preserve  their  names. 

Clemens  44  is  represented  by  Irenseus,  Eusebius, 
44  and  other  ancient  writers,  to  have  been  the  third 
44  bishop  of  Rome ;”  and  Irenseus  could  hardly  have 
been  mistaken  in  the  bare  fact  that  Clemens  was  pre¬ 
ceded  in  some  sense  by  Linus  and  Anacletus, 
44  though  some  affirm,  that  he  was  the  immediate 
44  successor  of  St.  Peter.”  What  unprejudiced  man 
does  not  see  the  probable  truth  that  they  were  all  or¬ 
dained  by  Peter  about  the  same  time,  but  Clemens 
was  not  the  chairman  of  the  college  of  pastors  till 
the  demise  of  these  two  (no  doubt  older)  men  ? 

44  Chrysostom”  &c.  44  affirms  that  Ignatius  was  or- 
adained  by  St,  Peter.  But  Eusebius.”  8tc.  44  place 


LAY-TEACHING. 


9.1 


u  Euodius  between  Peter  and  Ignatius.”  Is  not  the 
same  solution  the  probable  one.  It  reconciles  both 
classes  of  writers,  where  we  can  hardly  suppose 
them  mistaken.  That,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  hundred 
years  before  Irenaeus,  which  portion  of  it  he  had  a 
more  accurate  knowledge  of,  the  bishop  of  a  church 
succeeded,  in  his  sense ,  on  the  demise  of  him  who 
is  called  his  predecessor,  we  have  no  doubt :  Nor 
have  we  any  that  the  distinction  between  the  bishop 
and  his  colleagues,  of  one  congregation  however ,  was 
constantly  increasing  from  the  middle  of  the  second 
century. 

Says  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  u  This  personal  succes- 
M  sion — is  sometimes  attributed  to  presbyters .”  He 
then  quotes  Irenceus ,  “  who  attributes  the  keeping  of 
“  the  tradition  of  apostolical  doctrine  to  the  succes- 
u  sion  of  presbyters,  which  he  had  before  done  to 
u  bishops And,  in  another  place,  the  w  succession  of 
“  the  episcopacy  to  these  very  presbyters.”  Again,  he 
says  of  Irenseus,  w  His  plain  meaning  is  that  those 
“  persons  who  were  appointed  by  the  apostles  to 
w  oversee  and  govern  churches,  being  sufficient  wit- 
u  nesses  themselves  of  the  apostles’  doctrine,  have 
“  conveyed  it  down  to  us  by  their  successors.” 

How,  without  supposing  contemporary  pastors, 
will  we  account  for  that  otherwise  embarrassing  fact, 
the  number  of  bishops  in  a  church,  in  a  period  not 
at  all  corresponding  with  that  number?  You  may  say 
persecution  accounts  for  it :  But  this  is  arbitrary.  • 
Besides,  there  is  the  same  remarkable  difference  be¬ 
tween  one  place  and  another,  as  between  that  place 
and  the  usual  course  of  things  in  other  places.  At 
Antioch,  the  first  bishop  is  said  to  have  ruled  the 
church  twenty-three  years,  the  second  forty.  At 
Jerusalem,  Simeon  is  said  to  have  ruled  twenty-three 
years ;  the  next  thirteen  bishops  occupied  less  than 
forty  years.  One  would  naturally  conclude  that 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


(>2 

some  of  these  Jerusalem  bishops  must  have  been  in 
some  sense  contemporaries. 

Says  Mr.  Bingham,  (a  staunch  episcopalian,) 
44  Some  very  learned  persons  are — of  opinion — there 
44  were  two  bishops  in  many  cities,  one  of  the  Jews 
44  and  another  of  the  gentiles.”  The  reader  will  have 
seen  that  there  were  at  least  three  in  Rome.  The 
truth  is  that  this  is  one  mode  of  getting  clear  of  the 
ancient  plurality. 

44  Epiphanius  takes  occasion  to  say,  that  Alexan- 
44  dria  never  had  two  bishops  as  other  churches  had.” 
The  reader  will  see  just  now  that  Alexandria  had 
twelve  :  And  these  two  bishops  of  other  churches  is 
enough.  The  New  Testament  proves  what  ought 
to  have  existed  in  succeeding  ages.  W  ith  the  New 
Testament  before  us,  this  single  historical  fact,  of 
two  bishops ,  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  plurality 
did  continue  for  some  time. 

One  or  two  quotations  of  Bishop  Potter  are  enough 
to  shake  his  whole  system.  The  first  is  from  Jerome : 
44  In  Alexandria, — from  the  time  of  Mark  the  evan- 
44  gelist,  till — the  middle  of  the  third  century,  when- 
k4  ever  a  vacancy  happened  in  the  episcopal  chair, 
44  the  presbytery  elected  one  of  their  own  number  to 
44  fill  it.”  That  is,  the  most  proper  in  the  opinion  of 
the  presbyters  succeeded  as  chairman.  44  And  in 
44  other  places ,”  says  the  bishop,  (yes,  in  many  other 
places,)*44  if  Hilary — or  whoever  is  the  author  of  the 
44  Commentary  on  Paul’s  epistles,  falsely  ascribed  to 
i4  Ambrose,  may  be  credited,”  (and  he  is  not  op¬ 
posed  to  episcopacy,  and  one  of  the  most  sensible 
ancient  writers,)  44  it  was  customary  for  the  eldest 
44  presbyter  to  succeed  upon  any  bishop's  death, 
44  without  a  formal  election.” 

Dr.  Campbell  tells  us,  that  Jerome  says  the  epis¬ 
copal  order  did  not  exist  from  the  beginning,  but 
was  an  expedient  devised  after  apostolic  times ;  and 


LAY-TEACHING. 


93 


that  he  refers  to  Alexandria  (in  the  passage  quoted 
above  from  Bishop  Potter,)  not  as  a  confirmation  of 
an  opinion,  but  as  to  a  fact.  A  certain  pre-emi¬ 
nence  conferred  by  election  was  the  only  difference 
between  the  bishop  and  his  colleagues  (not  neigh¬ 
bouring  bishops,)  who  placed  him  in  his  bishopric. 
u  And,  in  the  fourth  century,  this  was  accompanied,” 
says  Euty chius  in  our  author,  u  by  imposition  of 
u  hands  and  benediction”  of  these  presbyters. 

XIX.  Now  how  can  all  this  consist  with  the  curi¬ 
ous  and  singular  opinion  of  “  A  Presbyterian  ?”  The 
bishop  was  at  liberty  to  call  on  any  layman :  But  by 
the  ruling  elder  of  the  frst  two  or  three  centuries , 
whom  he  was  at  perfect  liberty  to  call  ony  w  A  Pres¬ 
byterian”  means  such  presbyters  as  those  of  Ignatius 
in  the  second  century;  and  these  were  just  such  pres¬ 
byters  as  those  of  Alexandria  in  the  third  century — 
and  such  as  those  of  the  Constitutions  between  the 
second  and  fifth — and  such  as  those  of  whom  St. 
Paul  speaks,  and  to  whom  Irenseus  attributes  the 
succession  of  the  episcopacy. 

And  at  Alexandria,  in  the  fourth  century,  these 
presbyters  could  not  only  ordain  in  the  absence  of 
the  bishop,  but  could  consecrate  a  bishop . 

u  A  Presbyterian”  would  easily  make  his  escape 
if  all  laymen  and  bishops  were  mutes.  Ton  cannot 
show  that  the  presbyters  of  Ignatius  were  other  than 
lay -elders.  And  a  part  of  the  presbyters  of  the  Con¬ 
stitutions  were  lay-elders,  and  of  course  (There  is 
the  same  reason  to  say  it.)  a  part  of  the  Alexandrian 
were  also  laymen :  But  all  antiquity  is  against  the 
assertion  with  regard  to  any  of  them.  It  is  a  most 
unfounded  assertion,  without  proof  and  against  facts. 
And,  says  Eutychius,  there  were  just  txvelve  presby¬ 
ters,  and  the  remaining  eleven  ordained  the  bishop. 

We  really  wish  this  gentleman  would  give  us  a 
schedule  of  a  few  consistent  heads,  showing  what  he 
does  mean.  Does  he  really  think,  that  some  of  the  pres- 


94 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


byters  of  Ignatius  were  laymen;  some  of  those  of  the 
Constitutions,  and  some  of  those  of  Alexandria  ?  And, 
contrary  to  all  decency ,  the  bishop  would,  being  at  per¬ 
fect  liberty,  (It  was  licentiousness!)  call  on  them  to 
preach,  while  the  others — teachers — (of  his  own  order, 
says  APresbyterian ,)  were  “ sitting  byP  This  explains 
the  direction  of  Ignatius  :  w  The  more  any  one  sees 
u  his  bishop  silent,  the  more  let  him  revere  him.” 
The  teaching  presbyters  too  must  become  thus  vene¬ 
rable,  while  men  not  calculated  to  teach ,  unasked  by 
them ,  occupy  their  places. 

This  would  try  the  feelings  of  any  man.  There 
are  Christian  ministers  who  would  shed  their  blood 
for  human  salvation.  But  to  submit  to  such  conduct 
in  the  church  is  unchristian  meanness.  It  is  of  im¬ 
portance  to  know  that  we  are  not  obliged  to  bear  any 
insult  an  ecclesiastic  or  other  man  may  choose  to  in¬ 
flict.  St.  Paul  who  said,  “  Let  them  come  them¬ 
selves,  and  fetch  us  out ;”  would  not  have  ordained 
men  who  would  either  give  or  encourage  such.  To  say 
there  were  teaching  brethren  whom  the  presbytery , 
by  its  chairman  or  other  individuals,  would  often 
request  to  teach,  is  altogether  different.  With  regard 
to  presbyters  u  Let  the  presbyters  exhort  the  people 
a  one  by  one,  and  the  bishop  last,”  was  the  general 
rule.  These  were  all  teaching  presbyters,  and  as  we 
have  said,  when  the  rule  came  to  be  violated,  the 
presence  of  the  bishop  was  the  very  thing  that  forbad 
the  officiating  of  the  presbyter.  We  think  “  A  Pres¬ 
byterian”  is  very  unjust  to  the  memory  of  the  bi¬ 
shops.  It  is  not  enough  to  divest  St.  Paul  of  the 
manners  of  a  gentleman.  The  bishops  must  be  made 
a  disgrace  to  civilized  life! 

We  admit  that  the  true  system  appears  on  the 
face  of  A  Presbyterian's  u  Letters,”  &c.  For  it 
must  be  shoxvn  in  quoting  against  episcopalians . 
But  he  will  do  any  thing  rather  than  adntiit  it. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


95 


The  utmost  we  believe  he  means  to  concede  in  that 
book  is  this  :  44  We  have  also  reason  to  believe  that 
u  in  large  congregations  there  were  several  elders 
44  who,  as  assistants,  laboured  in  word  and  doctrine/’ 

Why,  we  solemnly  declare,  we  cannot  conceive  of  a 
truth  plainer  in  history  than  that  universally  each 
congregation  had  several  elders,  who,  including  the 
bishop,  were  co-pastors,  and  all  real  presidents  and 
teachers. 

We  will  introduce  two  quotations  from  A  Presby¬ 
terian  himself,  Irenaeus  is  one  of  the  most  venerable 
and  celebrated  bishops  of  the  latter  end  of  the  second 
century.  He  was  sent,  while  bishop,  by  his  church 
to  Rome.  He  carried  with  him  a  letter  from  the 
presbytery  of  his  church  to  the  bishops  of  Rome,  in 
which  they  call  him  44  a  presbyter,  their  brother  and 
44  colleague .” 

w  Bishop  Stillingfleet — says — one  church — one  al- 
44  tar — one  bishop — with  many  presbyters  assisting 
44  him — is  so  plain  as  to  the  churches  planted  by  the 
44  apostles — that  none  but  a  great  stranger  to  the 
44  rules  of  the  church  can  call  it  in  question. — After 
44  some  time — they  had — presbyters  fixed — in  distinct 
44  places.” 

That  there  were  some  small  congregations  consist¬ 
ing  of  a  few  Christians  who  were  confined  to  one  pas¬ 
tor;  that  is,  had  only  a  bishop  and  deacons,  without 
any  other  teaching  presbyters,  Dr.  Campbell  says,  is 
not  improbable .  But  the  quotation  from  Tertullian, 
brought  to  prove  the  fact ,  that  it  sometimes  though 
rarely  did  occur,  he  shows  to  be  a  false  reading. 
We  do  really  think  it  very  improbable  of  the  New 
Testament  churches :  For  almost  all  the  first  churches 
were  small,  and  they  all  as  far  as  we  know  had  a 
plurality  of  presbyters. 

It  may  be  asked,  is  that  then  the  true  svstem 
which  is  so  little  known  ?  Christians  who  read  little 
but  the  Bible,  many  times  the  best  (with  deference 


96 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


to  the  opinion  of  a  celebrated  Friend ,)  have -often 
very  erroneous  notions  of  the  ancient  Christian 
church.  Their  good  sense  cannot  explain  the  New 
Testament  references  by  modern  systems.  They 
often  leave  the  subject,  as  a  chaos  which  they  are  un¬ 
able  to  reduce  to  order. 

Scarcely  any  pastor  likes  the  New  Testament  po¬ 
lity.  A  congregationalist  finds  in  each  church  a  plu¬ 
rality  of  presidents,  possessed  of  a  real  authority, 
even  when,  as  in  cases  of  uninspired  excommunica¬ 
tion,  the  whole  church  was  the  consistory  approving 
or  rejecting  the  decisions  of  its  presbytery. 

He  is  pious  :  He  is  terrified  at  the  thought  of  attri¬ 
buting  to  divine  wisdom  the  oversight  of  putting  in 
after-ages  all  the  rule  into  the  hands  of  one  man 
alone,  or  of  the  multitude  alone  led  by  one  man. 
The  wisdom  exhibited  in  that  holy  book,  on  that 
subject,  is  to  us  one  internal  evidence  confirming  its 
truth.  Its  principles  of  government,  like  the  garment 
of  holiness,  fit  every  age  since  its  commencement, 
and  every  land,  be  its  polity  or  prejudices  what  they 
may,  and  anticipate  the  wants  of  every  individual. 
The  congregationalist  is  obliged  to  drop  the  subject. 

The  episcopalian  hates  mute  elders  as  much  as  the 
presbyterian  does  metropolitans.  If  the  first,  how¬ 
ever,  unveils  the  ancient  church  that  he  may  hear  the 
presbyters  speaking,  it  is  one  by  one  and  the  bishop 
last,  in  one  congregation.  He  finds  too,  that  though 
the  youngest  official  elder  submits  to  the  senior  elder , 
he  can  do  all  the  senior  can  when  requested. 

A  presbyterian  also  is  at  a  loss  what  to  do  with 
these  useless  pastors  in  one  parish.  Pastors  are  not 
employed  now  as  they  xvere  anciently .  The  ancient 
plurality  must  not  be  admitted,  or  a  reason  must  be 
found  for  the  subsequent  change  :  That  reason  hides 
the  wisdom  of  the  first  arrangement. 

His  best  plan  is  to  say  they  were  mute  elders,  and 
then,  though  ordained  not  to  teach,  and  though  no 


LAY-TEACHING. 


97 


part  of  the  public  instruction  was  committed  to  them, 
compel  them  to  speak  whenever  it  suits  his  purpose. 
This  is  not  an  easy  thing .  The  consequence  is,  that 
the  plain  and  simple  plan  of  ecclesiastical  polity  in  the 
New  Testament  is  represented  as  something  uncer¬ 
tain,  or  something  which  we  can  improve  and  are  at 
liberty  to  alter  as  we  please,  or  the  subject  is  avoided 
altogether. 

No  one  likes  a  plurality  of  pastors,  in  one  congre¬ 
gation  :  It  is  inconvenient ;  it  reduces  the  diocesan 
bishop  to  a  rector  at  most ;  it  places  the  independent 
congregation  and  clergyman  under  a  senate,  and  it 
shows  that  the  lay-bishops  are  of  right,  what  they 
are  in  truth,  the  real  governors  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion.  This  the  presbyterian  clergyman  is  not  till  age 
and  residence  makes  him  such. 

The  lay-bishops  are  a  wise  substitute  for  the  an¬ 
cient  plurality ;  and  this  shows  the  madness  of  call¬ 
ing  them  deacons.  Call  them  door-keepers,  if  you 
please.  Bishops  (that  is  rulers)  they  will  be  wherever 
there  is  no  establishment.  When  the  clergyman  de¬ 
parts  from  the  doctrine  or  discipline  which  they  pre¬ 
scribe,  he  soon  experiences  their  rule  :  He  is  redu¬ 
ced  to  obedience  or  expelled.  Where  he  is  a  man 
of  great  influence  it  is  different,  after  a  sufficient  re¬ 
sidence  :  If  his  co-pastors  are  mild  and  yielding 
men,  and  he  is  so  disposed,  he  may  reduce  them  be¬ 
low  trustees. 

XX.  Ordination  of  pastors  of  a  Christian  congre¬ 
gation,  selected  from  the  teachers  residing  in  that 
congregation,  is  familiar  to  every  careful  reader  of 
the  New  Testament.  They  were  u  apt  to  teach,” 
when  ordained.  There  were  generally  none  ordain¬ 
ed  till  some  time  after  the  existence  of  a  congrega¬ 
tion.  And  in  this  interval,  those  who  planted  such 
church  were  often  absent.  When  the  proper  persons 
had  been  ordained  bishops,  the  teachers  who  did  not 
belong  to  the  number  of  its  pastors,  would  not  teach 


98 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


publicly  in  such  congregation,  xvithout  the  approba 
tion  of  the  pastors ,  But  the  necessity  of  a  license, 
or  general  permission  to  teach,  is  a  thing  totally  un¬ 
known  to  that  book.  This  negative  proposition  can 
be  set  aside,  only  by  establishing  the  opposite  affir¬ 
mative.  The  Scriptures  (not  suppositions,)  are  our 
guide.  Had  Paul  and  his  company  licenses  from 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  ? 

The  office  of  pastor  or  governor,  and  that  of  dea¬ 
con,  or  superintendant  of  the  charities,  are  not  more 
evident,  than  the  fact,  that  bishops,  deacons,  and 
brethren,  all  taught  according  to  their  respective 
gifts,  and  the  necessities  of  the  church. 

There  were  generally  appointed,  in  each  congre¬ 
gation,  a  plurality  of  pastors,  as  soon  as  the  apos¬ 
tles,  or  apostolical  deputies,  judged  such  church  able 
to  furnish  proper  persons  from  its  teachers. 

It  is  surprising  with  what  coolness  gentlemen  tell 
us  of  the  reasons  (no  longer  existing,)  why  anciently 
several  pastors  were  needed  for  a  small  congrega¬ 
tion,  while  one  is  now  sufficient  for  a  large  one-— for 
duties  totally  neglected.  The  reason  must  be  sought 
elsewhere.  “  They  have  either  a  very  low  opinion 
M  of  the  work  of  a  gospel-bishop,  or  very  little  con- 
u  sideration  of  the  zeal,  activity,  and  diligence  which 
u  was  then  used  in  preaching,  reproving,  exhorting 
u  in  season  and  out  of  season,  that  think  one  single 
u  person  was  able  to  undergo  it  all.”  Men  were 
then  u  more  apprehensive  of  the  weight  of  their 
u  function  than  for  any  to  undertake  such  a  care  and 
u  charge  of  souls  that  it  was  impossible  for  them  ever 
“  to  know,  observe  or  watch  over,  so  as  to  give  an 
tc  account  for  them.” 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  among  the  variety 
of  talent  exhibited  in  each  congregation,  some 
persons  very  desirable  to  have  in  the  presbytery, 
or  college  of  pastors,  of  each  congregation,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  piety,  good  sense,  and  influence,  though 


LAY-TEACHING. 


99 


possessing  some  ability  to  teach,  and  perhaps  much 
ability  to  counsel,  would  be  at  first,  perhaps  during 
life,  not  very  able  to  defend,  and  explain  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  gospel.  While  their  experience,  sense, 
and  influence,  would  make  them  useful  as  governors 
and  private  counsellors,  other  elders  and  brethren 
would  be  more  useful  as  public  teachers.  Indeed 
we  do  not  doubt,  that  there  would  be  those,  who, 
(though  possessing  as  Christians,  and  as  rulers,  the 
right  to  teach,)  did  not  in  fact  teach  publicly  at  all  : 
Those  elders  who  laboured  in  word  and  doctrine,  as 
well  as  in  governing,  admonishing,  catechizing,  and 
advising  the  faithful,  were  worthy  of  double  honour ; 
especially  if — as  need  not  be  questioned — double 
honour  implies  a  more  plentiful  allowance  for  their 
support.  Their  whole  time  was  employed  in  the 
work  of  the  gospel.  And  here  is  the  only  rational,  or 
Scriptural,  foundation  of  a  liberal  salary.  It  is  dis¬ 
honourable  for  a  man  to  receive  the  support  on  any 
other  ground  than  that  which  the  Legislator  of 
Christians  ordained. 

That  brethren  and  deacons  as  well  as  elders  did 
teach  is  certain,  if  it  be  possible,  from  plain  declara¬ 
tions  of  holy  writ,  to  establish  any  fact. 

After  the  death  of  Stephen,  during  u  a  great  per- 
“  secution  against  the  church,  which  was  at  Jeru- 
“  salem, — they  were  all  scattered  abroad — except  the 
u  apostles.  And — they  that  were  scattered  abroad, 
“  went  every  where  preaching  the  word.”  They 
preached  Christ.  They  preached  to  Jews  and  Gre¬ 
cians.  Their  subjects  were  the  peculiar  doctrines 
and  proofs  of  Christian  truth.  These  facts,  and  the 
deductions  from  them,  cannot  be  perverted.  The 
rules  they  establish,  to  us ,  by  revelation ,  never  were 
altered  by  that  authority.  If  any  one,  willing  to 
know  the  truth ,  doubts  whether  we  understand  this 
plain  passage  correctly,  let  him  read  bishop  Potter’s 
attempt  to  put  a  different  sense  on  it :  That  will 


100 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


convince  him  :  Besides,  we  will  give  him  presently 
the  comment  of  a  much  more  eminent  bishop — the 
father  of  ecclesiastical  history — a  man  of  all  the  an¬ 
cients  of  his  day,  as  far  as  we  know,  most  capable  of 
deciding  on  the  meaning  of  this  piece  of  sacred 
history — if  indeed  it  were  capable  of  two  meanings. 

And  the  hand  of  the  Lord  zvas  with  them.  No 
one  condemned  them.  No  one  thought  of  it.  No 
one  knew  of  any  other  system  than  that  of  those 
persecuted  brethren. 

Philip  was  one  of  them.  He  and  his  colleague, 
Stephen,  who  was  now  dead,  had  been  appointed 
deacons  by  the  Christian  church.  That  their  office 
of  superintendants  of  the  charity  of  the  church,  con¬ 
ferred  a  right  to  preach,  we  have  not  any  reason  what¬ 
ever  to  suppose.  Such  assumptions,  without  evi¬ 
dence,  would  prove  almost  any  thing#  Men  would 
be  ashamed  of  similar  reasoning  in  any  other  case. 

The  story  of  Apollos,  if  it  stood  alone,  would 
remove  all  doubt  respecting  what  wTe  contend  for. 
Suppose  this  new  disciple  mistaken  :  Did  the  per¬ 
fect  Christians,  with  whom  he  associated,  correct  his 
error.  They  assisted  his  studies  ;  and  the  brethren 
gave  him  recommendatory  letters  to  Achaia.  But 
it  evidently  never  was  imagined,  that  there  was  any 
thing  irregular  in  his  practice.  Is  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  designed  to  lead  us  into  error  ? 

He  was  not  “solemnly  ordained,”  or  “styled,”  an 
“  elder,”  of  any  kind.  He  was  neither  a  teaching 
nor  a  lay  pastor.  He  was  not  a  licentiate.  That 
fraudulent  kind  of  reasoning  which  immediately  as¬ 
serts  that  he  must  have  been  something  more  than 
appears  in  the  narrative,  that  there  must  have  been 
an  “  ecclesiastical  act,”  is  a  disgrace  to  religion. 
Indeed  the  narrative  itself  sets  all  such  insinuations 
at  defiance. 

The  story  is  simply  this  :  A  gentleman  of  Alex¬ 
andria,  of  Jewish  extraction,  before  he  perfectly  un- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


101 


derstood  the  gospel,  without  blame,  or  the  least 
suggestion  of  it,  u  taught  diligently  ;”  and  when 
more  fully  instructed  by  eminent  Christians,  without 
waiting  for  license  of  any  kind,  he  publicly  shewed, 
by  the  Scriptures,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  His 
conduct  was  what  the  church  desired  and  approved. 

There  is  not  a  trace  of  any  other  sentiment  in  the 
whole  New  Testament :  Read  the  xiv.  chapter  of 
the  1st  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  from  the  26th  to 
the  31st  verse.  In  that  church  were  many  preachers. 
The  apostle  blames  their  want  of  order  :  But  in  the 
most  express  terms  he  says,  “  Ye  may  all  prophecy, 
one  bv  one,  that  all  may  learn  and  all  be  comforted .” 
We  are  not  certain  that  all  these  prophets  were- In¬ 
spired  on  all  occasions.  Whether  inspired  prophets 
or  not,  they  were  regulated  by  rules  of  common  pru¬ 
dence,  as  far  as  they  submitted  to  the  apostolic  au¬ 
thority. 

If  teaching  was  restricted  to  the  episcopal  office, 
in  this  church,  they  were  all  pastors,  one  by  one. 
They  had  at  this  time,  however,  no  ordained  pas¬ 
tors.  This  seems  morally  certain. 

As  this  church  was  yet  recent  in  its  origin,  and 
surrounded  by  dissipation  and  luxury,  and  the  mem¬ 
bers  very  defective  in  Christian  knowledge,  unless  so 
far  as  supernaturally  assisted,  there  had  yet  been  no 
elders  ordained  over  them.  Divine  wisdom  prefer¬ 
red  leaving  them  till  now  under  the  influence  and 
direction  of  those  miraculous  powers,  which  we  see 
from  the  apostle’s  letter,  were  so  richly  shed  upon 
them.  He  had  laboured  more  than  eighteen  months 
there,  and  when  he  thus  addressed  them,  had  been 
absent  probably  above  three  years.  “  The  apostles 
used  not,”  says  bishop  Potter,  “  to  ordain  ministers 

in  any  place,  before  the  second  time  of  their  com- 
u  ing  thither.  There  is  scarce  an  instance,”  &c. 

It  seems  to  us  unaccountable  that  any  one  will 
attend  to  this  general  truth,  and  read  the  epistle  itself, 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


iu£ 

and  suppose  there  were  such  bishops  and  deacons,  a^ 
afterwards  existed,  then  in  the  Corinthian  church. 
Many  of  the  apostolic  directions  are  utterly  unac¬ 
countable  on  the  supposition  of  rulers  there.  The 
New  Testament  proves  decisively,  and  we  might 
justly  consider  it  as  certain,  if  we  had  no  infor¬ 
mation  on  the  subject,  that  the  rulers  governed  the 
teachers  who  were  not  rulers.  The  prophets  and 
teachers  at  Corinth  regulated  themselves  when  the 
apostles  were  not  there.  God  had  now  set  in  this 
u  church;  first,  apostles;  secondarily ,  prophets; 
“  thirdly ,  teachers ;  after  that,  miracles.”  That  pastors 
are  not  included  in  this  list,  is  evident,  from  a  similar 
sentence  of  the  apostle.  Some  years  afterwards, 
when  pastors  had  been  more  generally  ordained  in 
the  congregations,  after  apostles,  prophets  and  evan¬ 
gelists,  Paul  adds,  pastors  and  teachers. 

That  the  eucharist  was  celebrated  without  pastors 
is  no  objection  to  the  acknowledgment  of  this  fact. 
In  cases  of  necessity  the  presence  of  a  presbyter 
could  be  dispensed  with. 

Two  things  are  extremely  plain  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  :  The  system  of  local  bishops  and  teachers  is 
one  :  The  other  is  that  of  extraordinary  evangelist- 
bishops  or  governors,  whether  of  apostolic  or  in¬ 
ferior  rank.  Perhaps,  indeed,  not  only  these  but  in¬ 
ferior  itinerant  preachers  of  the  gospel  used  great 
and  almost  exclusive  influence  in  the  first  selection 
of  local  bishops  in  the  congregations.  The  apostles, 
however,  when  present  in  any  church,  acted  with  its 
presbytery.  Paul  and  the  presbytery  of  some  church, 
ordained  Timothy.  Bishop  Potter  thinks  these  pres¬ 
byters  must  have  been  all  bishops.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  of  it. 

Says  Eusebius,  speaking  of  the  apostolic  times, 
a  Many  of  the  then  disciples,  travelling  abroad,  per- 
4i  formed  the  work  of  evangelists  to  those  who  had 
a  not  yet  heard  the  word. —  These  having  laid  the 


LAY-TEACHING. 


10$ 

44  foundation  in  remote  places,  and  constituted  other 
44  pastors ,  committed  to  them,”  &c.  He  appears  to 
us  to  speak  of  those  scattered  abroad  on  the  death 
of  Stephen.  This  history  shows  us  not  only  what 
we  intimated  above,  respecting  their  influence,  but 
that  the  ordination  of  a  disciple-evangelist,  or  of  a 
disciple  performing  the  work  oj  an  evangelist ,  was 
as  good  as  that  of  an  apostle.  The  absurd  notions 
of  conveying  a  presbytery  to  the  place,  or  of  con¬ 
veying  the  intended  pastors  to  a  bishop  of  another 
church,  did  not  then  exist. 

XXI.  The  distinction  of  which  our  heads  are  full, 
was  unknown  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church.  We  do 
not  mean  a  distinction  between  governors  and  go¬ 
verned — pastors  and  people — not  between  those  who 
could  and  did,  and  those  who  could  not,  and  did  not 
teach — but  a  distinction  between  those  who  had  an 
exclusive  right  to  teach,  and  those  who  had  not  a 
right  to  impart  the  knowledge  which  God  had  given 
them.  The  knowledge  we  speak  of  is  that  of  all 
others  the  most  important  to  mankind. 

The  course  which  ecclesiastical  affairs  took  is 
plain.  The  44  Commentary  on  Paul’s  Epistles,” 
now  generally  ascribed  to  Hilary,  shows  us  the  sen¬ 
timents  of  Christians  in  the  fourth  century. 

Commenting  on  the  iv.  chap,  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  he  says,  44  In  the  beginning  of  Christianity 
44  for  the  augmentation  and  increase  of  the  church, 
44  a  general  commission  was  granted  unto  all,  both  to 
44  preach  the  gospel  and  baptize,  and  explain  the 
44  Scriptures  in  ecclesiastical  assemblies.  (In  ecclesia.) 
44  But  when  the  church  had  spread  itself  into  all 
44  places ,  buildings  (conventicula)  were  erected,  and 
44  rulers  and  other  officers  appointed,  (in  ecclesiis  sunt 
44  ordinata,)  that  no  one  among  the  clergy  should 
44  presume  to  meddle  with  any  office  which  he  knew 
44  was  not  committed  to  his  trust.”  The  translation 
is  Mr.  Bingham’s. 


104 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


A  few  lines  above  this,  Hilary  says,  44  At  first  all 
44  taught  and  all  baptized.”  And  mentioning  the 
human  improvements  in  the  arrangements  of  the 
church,  he  says  it  was  owing  to  them  that,  in  his 
time,  44  Neither  did  the  deacon  preach  to  the  people,” 
(that  is,  in  the  church,  as  will  he  seen  by  quotations 
hereafter,)  44  nor  laymen  baptize.”  Plainly  intimat¬ 
ing  that  the  deacon  preached  originally,  because  all 
Christians  were  authorized  by  the  general  commis¬ 
sion. 

The  meaning  of  this  writer  respecting  the  origi¬ 
nal  general  commission  to  preach,  admits  of  no 
doubt.  He  tells  us  what  we  learn  from  the  Serin- 

*  _  L 

tures  and  from  other  sources.  The  period  of  the 
change  which  he  mentions  is  not  so  certain.  But  his 
opinion  regarding  that  is  of  less  importance. 

By  conventicula ,  respectable  writers  understand 
him  to  design  the  people  of  the  church,  described 
before  and  after  by  ecclesia .  We  cannot  help  adopt¬ 
ing  Mr.  Bingham’s  translation  :  Particularly  because 
he  was  no  friend  to  the  result.  Says  Mr.  Thorndike, 
(after  admitting  that  the  Christians  in  Origen’s  time 
had  no  stately  fabrics ,)  they  had  44  places  which  Ar- 
44  nobius  and  Ammianus  call  conventicula .” 

He  thus  appears  to  connect  these  alterations  with 
the  building  of  houses  for  worship,  a  thing  not  done 
in  the  apostles’  days.  We  suppose  it  will  be  admitted, 
that  till  some  time  after  the  commencement  of  the 
second  age,  rooms  in  the  houses  of  the  brethren, 
were  for  the  most  part  the  Christian  churches.  He 
connects  these  alterations  also  with  the  rise  of  epis¬ 
copacy.  By  rulers  (rectores)  he  means  the  bishops, 
or  rulers  of  presbyters. 

The  alterations  are  also  referred  to  a  period  sub¬ 
sequent  to  Paul’s  writings, — and  when  Christianity 
had  spread  itself  into  all  places.  44  Thence  it  is,” 
says  Hilary,  44  that  the  apostles’  writings  are  not 
44  suitable  to  the  present  state  of  the  church*” 


LAY-TEACHING. 


105 


On  the  whole,  he  appears  to  us  to  have  had  in 
view  the  gradual  alteration  by  human  hands,  which 
had  made  the  church  xvhat  it  was  in  his  day.  On 
this  subject  he  was  perhaps  obliged  to  be  cautious. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  original  state  of  the  church 
was  an  acknoxvledged  fact.  It  was  plainly  described 
in  Eusebius  and  in  the  Scriptures. 

Let  the  reader  recollect  the  state  of  Hilary's  church 
when  he  wrote.  It  shows  the  necessity  of  caution  on 
his  part.  Near  his  time,  in  a  contention  for  the  place 
of  bishop  above  other  bishops ,  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven  persons  were  massacred.  The  bishop  of  Rome 
had  now  stately  chariots  and  sumptuous  tables,  and 
surpassed  kings  in  the  splendour  and  magnificence  of 
his  entertainments. 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian  in  the  latter  end  of 
the  second  century,  is  more  valuable,  because  of  a 
date  earlier  by  a  century  and  a  half.  w  He  affirms,” 
says  bishop  Potter,  u  that  all  Christians  were  made 
44  priests  by  Christ,  so  that  where  three  are  gathered 
u  together  they  make  a  church,  though  they  be  all 
“  laymen  ;  and,  where  no  clergyman  is  present,  lay- 
44  men  may  baptize  and  celebrate  the  eucharist,  the 
u  distinction  between  clergy  and  laity  being  only  of 
44  the  church’s  appointment.” 

A  Presbyterian  states  Tertullian’s  sentiments  thus, 
referring  probably  to  some  other  part  of  his  works  : 
u  Tertullian  does  not  scruple  to  say  that  even  a  lay- 
44  man  may  baptize  with  the  bishop’s  leave.”  This 
book,  like  ours,  was  made  for  lay-people.  Tertullian 
does  not  scruple  indeed.  He  says,  44  You  do  baptize 
He  may  elsewhere  say  with  the  bishop's  leave .  Here 
he  says,  44  You  have  the  right  in  yourself.”  The 
passage  so  scrupled  is  this  :  We  may  read  it  with  the 
bishop's  leave :  44  The  difference  between  clergy  and 
44  laity  the  authority  of  the  church  made. — When  none 
44  of  the  ecclesiastical  order  is  present,  you  offer  the 


106 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  eucharist,  and  baptize,  and  are  a  priest  to  yourself, 
u  But  where  three  persons  are,  though  laymen,  there 
w  is  a  church. — If,  then,  you  have  the  right  of  a 
“  priest  in  yourself,  where  it  is  necessary  to  exer- 
u  cise  it,  you  ought  to  have  also  the  discipline  of  a 
“  priest,”  &c. 

We  admit  that  Tertullian  taught  that  laymen 
ought,  for  the  sake  of  order,  to  waive  their  right, 
except  in  cases  of  necessity .  We  defend  the  same 
sentiment.  And  as  the  salvation  of  mankind  does 
not  depend  on  them,  we  conceive  no  necessity  for 
laymen  administering  baptism  or  pronouncing  the 
blessing.  Tertullian,  or  rather  the  church,  then 
thought  baptism  essential  to  salvation.  And  from 
this  sentiment  the  propriety  of  lay-baptism  naturally 
flows. 

The  necessity,  in  our  view,  is  with  regard  to  instruc¬ 
tion.  Here  again  we  are  in  circumstances  very  different 
from  Tertullian’s  contemporaries.  He  does  not  say 
to  the  laic,  You  preach.  This  would  have  proved 
nothing.  For  no  one  then  conceived  of  preaching 
as  peculiar  to  the  presbyter.  This  was  a  period  when 
the  deacon  still  preached  in  the  church,  and  the  lay¬ 
man  when  invited.  There  was  no  restriction  on 
teaching  out  of  the  church.  In  order  to  prove  the 
fcjght  of  the  priesthood  in  the  layman,  Tertullian  was 
obliged  to  mention  acts  in  common  cases  peculiar  to 
the  presbyter,  and  not  often  performed  by  laymen. 
The  layman’s  undisputed  Christian  right  to  teach 
proved  nothing.  This  had  not  been  a  priestly  act.  It 
never  had  been  restricted  to  presbyters.  But  his 
right  to  perform  in  cases  of  necessity  acts  usually 
appropriated  to  the  presbyter  did.  The  reader  will 
please  to  remark,  that  as  Tertullian  died  u  at  a  very 
“ great  agef  about  or  before  the  time  of  the  dispute 
between  Alexander  and  Demetrius,  to  be  introduced 
below,  this  appeal  to  the  practice  of  Christians  was 


LAY-TEACHING. 


107 

made  long  before,  perhaps  very  long  before  that  dis¬ 
pute.  Between  these  two  epochs  the  church  was 
changing  for  the  worse  with  accelerating  rapidity. 

Bishop  Potter  objects  to  Tertuilian’s  testimony 
the  succession  of  bishops.  But  neither  bishops  nor 
their  succession  have  necessarily  any  thing  to  do  with 
the  information  of  Tertullian,  though  the  apostolical 
practice  illustrates  it.  It  is  not  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  bishop  and  flock,  governor  and  governed,  that 
he  affirms  to  be  of  human  origin.  It  is  the  distinc¬ 
tion  connected  with  the  common  appropriation  of 
certain  ecclesiastical  offices  to  the  pastors,  to  such 
an  extent,  as  his-self  approved,  that  Tertullian  con¬ 
siders  not  of  divine  origin.  The  well  known  fact 
that  the  apostle  Peter  calls  all  Christians  God’s  clergy , 
and  that  no  instance  can  be  produced  of  the  term  be¬ 
ing  otherwise  restricted  before  the  time  of  Tertullian, 
explains  and  confirms  his  sentiment. 

It  appears  to  us  that  Tertullian  refers  to  the  change 
introduced  by  the  church,  as  an  acknowledged  fact. 
Hilary  seems  to  speak  of  the  same  thing  as  if  not 
questioned  in  his  day .  But  when  the  former  says 
that  there  is  a  church,  though  a  clergyman  be  not 
present,  he  does  not  deny  that  where  the  bishop  is, 
there  the  people  ought  to  assemble  with  him. 

When  Tertullian  says,  “Laymen  have  power  to 
u  baptize,  which  yet  for  the  sake  of  order  they  ought 
u  only  to  use  in  cases  of  necessity,”  bishop  Potter 
doubts  whether  he  may  be  credited . 

The  author  of  the  “general  commission  to  preach,” 
we  know  and  reverence.  The  human  authority,  that 
reconsidered,  and  corrected  his  arrangements,  does 
not  bind  us. 

One  cause  of  these  changes  was  the  fact  in  which 
Paul  gloried.  God  had  chosen  “  things  that  were 
“  despised”  to  fulfil  his  purposes.  Says  Celsus,  as 
quoted  by  Bingham,  “You  shall  see  weavers,  tailors, 
“  fullers,  and  the  most  illiterate  and  rustic  fellows, — 


108 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  set  up  to  teach.”  This  sentiment  of  unbelieving 
Celsus  corresponds  admirably  with  some  expressions 
©f  modern  good  men.  Nothing  distresses  them  like 
the  preaching  of  a  tinker  or  cobbler. 

And  that  it  was  the  fact,  that  unlearned  laymen 
did  teach  in  public,  the  following  passage  of  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas,  alone,  would  establish.  Re¬ 
fer  it  to  the  first  or  second  century.  If  at  the  earliest 
period,  it  confirms  what  we  contend  for,  as  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  first  century;  if  as  late  as  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  it  shows  that  lay-teaching  was 
still  notoriously  the  approved  practice  of  the  church. 

44  Try  the  man  who  hath  the  Spirit  of  God,  be- 
44  cause  the  Spirit  which  is  from  above  is  humble, 
44  and  quiet,  and  departs  from  all  wickedness  : — The 
44  Spirit  of  God  doth  not  speak  to  a  man  when  he 
44  will,  but  when  God  pleases.  When,  therefore,  a 
44  man  who  hath  the  Spirit  of  God,  shall  come  into 
44  the  churches  of  the  righteous,  who  have  the  faith 
44  of  God,  and  they  pray  unto  the  Lord,  then  the 
44  holy  angel  of  God  fills  that  man  with  the  blessed 
44  Spirit,  and  he  speaks  in  the  congregation ,  as  he  is 
44  moved  of  God.  Thus,  therefore,  is  the  Spirit  of 
44  God  known,  because  whosoever  speaketh  by  the 
44  Spirit  of  God,  speaketh  as  the  Lord  will. — Prove 
44  that  man  by  his  life  and  works,  who  says  that  he 
44  hath  the  Holy  Spirit.” 

What  this  writer  really  means  by  this  inspiration, 
we  know  not.  The  question  whether  Hermas  be 
correct  in  these  sentiments  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  at  present.  We  are  not  certain,  however,  that 
he  means  the  assistance  claimed  in  modern  times  by 
some  common  teachers.  A  prior  part  of  the  book 
leads  us  to  think  he  did  not.  He  there  speaks  of  two 
angels  which  every  man  has ,  one  the  angel  of  righ¬ 
teousness,  who  in  his  heart  suggests  good  thoughts. 

The  quotation  certainly  show’s  that  lay-teaching 
publicly  in  the  church  was  then  practised.  No  doubt 


LAY-TEACHING. 


109 


it  was  regulated  by  rules  of  order,  and  by  the  rulers 
of  the  church  mentioned  by  the  same  writer  in  a 
preceding  quotation:  Just  as  the  same  thing  so  exists 
now  in  some  modern  congregations  of  Christians  : 
Any  man  speaks  as  he  thinks  he  is  moved .  The 
rulers  judge  and  regulate  his  teaching. 

XXII.  Ignatius,  whose  epistles,  as  they  now  stand, 
certainly  are  not  wanting  in  exhortations  to  obedi¬ 
ence  to  the  rulers  of  the  church,  affords  a  proof  of 
the  existence  of  lay-teaching;  and,  let  it  be  marked, 
There  is  not  a  word  in  any  of  the  apostolical  fathers 
against  it. 

Ignatius  abounds  with  sentiments  that  one  can 
hardly  help  suspecting  of  being  corruptions  of  the 
text.  It  is  matter  of  joy  to  a  good  man  that  some 
of  the  ecclesiastics  later  than  this  martyr,  had  no 
inducement  to  forge  references  to  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  They  would,  in  that  case,  probably,  bv  some 
evident  frauds,  have  deprived  us  of,  or  rather  ren¬ 
dered  doubtful,  what  is  more  valuable  than  all  the 
rest  of  their  writings. 

But  take  the  passages  of  Ignatius  respecting  the 
bishop  and  presbyters,  containing  a  language  so  dif¬ 
ferent  from  the  New  Testament,  and  from  Clemens, 
Polycarp,  Barnabas,  and  Hermas,  or  take  the  exhor¬ 
tations  to  obedience  to  presbyters  ( or  bishops)  and 
deacons,  in  these  other  apostolical  fathers,  and  com¬ 
pare  with  them  the  fact,  that  not  a  word  is  said  in 
any  of  the  five  in  opposition  to  lay-teaching . 

On  the  contrary, — says  Ignatius  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Ephesians :  u  They  who  profess  themselves  chris- 
“  tians  are  known  by  what  they  do.” 

“  It  is  better  for  a  man  to  hold  his  peace  and  be, 
44  than  to  say  he  is  a  Christian  and  not  to  be.  It  is 
44 good  to  teach ,  if  what  he  says  he  does  likewise.” 
w  Brethren ,  those  that  corrupt  families — shall  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God — How  much  more 

K 


110  A  DEFENCE  OF 

u  shall  he  die  who  by  his  wicked  doctrine  corrupts 
“  the  faith.” 

His  manner  of  addressing  ecclesiastical  rulers  was 
this:  “  Speak  to  every  one  as  God  shall  enable  thee.” 
He  does  not  use  the  above  doubtful  language  to  such. 
In  our  quotation  he  speaks  to  all  professing  Chris¬ 
tians.  The  reader  of  the  epistles  could  hardly 
doubt  the  fair  interpretation  :  But  if  there  were  any 
thing  in  them  in  opposition  to  our  construction  of  it, 
or  if  it  stood  alone,  we  would  not  quote  it. 

Says  Eusebius,  u  After  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen 
u  all  the  disciples  except  the  txuehe  only,  being  scat- 
“  tered  through  Judea  and  Samaria,  preached  to  the 
“Jews.”  This  passage  proves  that  in  the  opinion, 
and  according  to  the  traditionary  knowledge  of  the 
father  of  ecclesiastical  history,  all  the  disciples 
preached  at  the  period  of  Stephen’s  martyrdom ; 
and  it  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  that  a  man  long  be¬ 
fore  Eusebius,  remarkable  for  industry  in  collecting 
ecclesiastical  writings,  favoured  lay-preaching  pub¬ 
licly  in  the  church ,  as  the  approved  practice  of  the 
church :  And  Eusebius  is  the  historian;  and  this, 
were  there  any  possible  doubt  respecting  it,  would 
decide  on  his  meaning  here.  On  the  other  hand, — 
is  there  any  thing  in  Eusebius,  or  all  that  antiquity 
before  him,  against  it? 

Quoting  the  letter  of  the  churches  of  Lyons  and  Vi¬ 
enna,  of  the  second  century,  he  says:  u  Alexander,  by 
“ profession  a  physician ,  a  person  who  had  dwelt 
u  many  years  in  the  Gallias,  and  was  known  to  almost 
“  all  men  by  reason  of  his  love  to  God,  and  his  bold- 
“  ness  and  fearlessness  in  preaching  his  word,”  &c. 

We  cannot  doubt,  that  had  he  been  in  orders,  it 
would  have  been  noted,  as  certainly  as  his  secular 
profession.  Indeed  the  mention  of  the  one  would 
have  naturally  suggested  the  other,  had  it  existed. 
We  wish  not  to  be  understood  to  say,  that  his  secu- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


I'M 

far  profession,  at  this  early  period,  lessens  much  the 
probability  of  his  having  been  a  clergyman,  because 
we  well  know  that  in  this  age  of  the  church,  it  was 
not  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  a  bishop 
to  work  at  a  manual  employment  where  it  was  ne¬ 
cessary  for  his  support.  \Y  e  think,  however,  that 
had  he  been  of  no  secular  profession,  the  churches  of 
Lyons  and  Vienna,  or  indeed  Eusebius,  would  have 
mentioned  that  he  was  a  bishop,  presbyter,  or  dea¬ 
con,  had  he  been  either.  And  especially  after  hav¬ 
ing,  by  saying  he  was  a  physician,  exposed  us  to  a 
mistake,  Eusebius  would  not  have  failed  to  prevent 
it  by  stating  his  sacred  office,  if  he  had  one,  as  was 
usual  where  no  such  reason  existed. 

XXIII.  This  valuable  historian,  to  whom  the 
Christian  world  is  so  much  indebted,  under  divine 
providence,  for  the  preservation  of  tracts,  which 
otherwise  probably  would  have  been  lost,  says  of 
Origen  :  u  He  withdrew  out  of  Alexandria,  went  to 
*4  Palestine,  and  made  his  abode  in  Cesarea,  where 
44  the  bishops  of  these  parts  intreated  him,  although 
44  he  was  not  yet  ordained  priest,  to  discourse,  and 
1,4  expound  the  holy  Scriptures,  publicly  in  the  church?'1 
And  he  says,  w  hen  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alexan¬ 
dria,  complained  of  it ,  because  44  this  thing  was  never 
44  heard  of  nor  done  till  this  time,  that  laymen  should 
44  preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops,  these  bishops 
44  replied,  /  know  not  how  you  came,  so  apparently 
44  to  misrepresent  the  truth.  For  they  are  invited  to 
44  preach  to  the  people ,  (when  they  are  found  lit  to 
44  profit  the  brethren,)  by  the  holy  bishops.” 

The  answer  of  these  Palestine  bishops,  were  not 
other  facts  decisive  of  their  meaning,  and  were  it 
not  plain  in  itself,  is  rendered  determinate  by  the  re¬ 
monstrance  of  Demetrius.  That  this  prelate  meant 
just  what  he  said, — in  the  presence  of  bishops , — will 
receive  additional  confirmation  presently.  But  the 
whole  drift  of  that  antiquity  worthy  of  attention,  and 


112 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


the  total  absence  of  objections  to  lay-preaching,  shows 
that  Demetrius  said  just  what  he  could  say  with 
some  degree  of  plausibility.  For  it  is  probable  in 
itself,  and  evident  from  the  answer  of  the  Pales¬ 
tine  pastors,  that  laymen,  in  the  then  state  of  the 
church,  however  fit,  would  seldom  be  invited  to 
preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops.  Nor  is  it  at  all 
probable,  that  at  this  time  there  would  often  be  men 
very  -well  qualified  and  not  clergymen. 

This  phrase,  In  the  presence  of  bishops ,  means 
almost  the  same  as  publicly  in  the  church,— where 
the  bishop  was  present:  Both  parties  spoke  of  their 
own  times.  The  assertion  of  Demetrius,  though 
not  strictly  correct,  was  probably  true  as  far  as  his 
knowledge  extended.  We  are  not  obliged  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  this  gentleman,  though  he  acted  with 
his  usual  rashness,  designed  to  misrepresent  the 
truth.  Alexander  and  he  were  both  confessors,  and 
men  of  great  piety.  Alexander  died  in  prison  (says 
Dionysius)  a  happy  death.  But  Alexander  was  a  patron 
of  learning,  and  industrious  in  collecting  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  writings.  It  would  seem  that  while  he  was  a 
man  of  extensive  information,  Demetrius  was  igno¬ 
rant  :  Good  man  as  he  was,  he  might  have  been 
as  blind  and  contracted,  and  as  desirous  to  evade 
this  particular  truth  as  some  bishops  now  are ;  and 
as  some  gentlemen  in  full  orders ,  though  not  bishops, 
now  are  :  And  we  are  told  he  envied  Origen,  and  by 
later  authority  that  his  conduct  to  him  was  marked 
with  passion  and  arrogance. 

The  Palestine  pastors  assert  that  the  occurrence — 
not  laymen  teaching,  but  laymen  teaching  publicly  in 
the  church,  or  rather  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop — 
though  rare,  did  really  take  place.  And  they  give  De¬ 
metrius  the  names  of  persons  whom  bishops  (having 
learned  their  fitness  to  teach,)  had  invited  to  address 
the  people ,  that  is,  the  assembled  congregation , — pub¬ 
licly  in  the  church, —  in  the  presence  of  bishops. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


113 


All  this  implies  that  there  was  now  no  dispute 
about  laymen  preaching ,  if  not  in  the  presence  of 
bishops.  The  previous  history  of  Origen  demon¬ 
strates  the  correctness  of  this  deduction.  Eusebius 
tells  us  of  his  “  cheerfulness  and  confidence  in 
44 preaching  the  doctrine  of  Christ ,”  prior  to  this ,  at 
Alexandria — not  in  the  church ,  when  the  bishop  was 
present,  as  the  objection  of  his  bishop  proves.  This 
fact  is  decisive  of  the  precise  meaning  of  the  bishops. 

Some  will  catch  here  at  a  straw.  It  may  be 
asserted,  that  this  request  of  a  bishop  was  of  the  na¬ 
ture  of  an  44  ecclesiastical  act.”  It  might  as  well  be 
said,  that  putting  on  a  minister’s  spectacles  to  look  at 
a  layman  is  an  44  ecclesiastical  act.”  We  see  that  this 
friendly  invitation  to  a  great  and  good  man  was  not 
then  so  considered  :  Nor  was  it  so  in  fact.  It  was 
considered  by  the  one  party  as  a  mere  request ,  and 
by  the  other  as  a  thoughtless  action  of  the  man. 
When  a  similar  request  was  made  to  a  layman  a  few 
months  ago,  in  New  York,  at  a  missionary  meeting, 
by  the  holy  bishops,  who  had  found  hi)  report ,  that 
he  was  a  fit  person  to  profit  the  brethren,  (He  was 
neither  examined  nor  -watched  on  the  occasion.)  the 
bishops  listened  with  respect.  He  wras  requested  to 
speak  to  the  people, — to  a  vast  congregation, — pub¬ 
licly  in  the  church, — in  the  presence  of  bishops. 
Some  persons  wrere  pleased,  and  some  perhaps  dis¬ 
pleased  :  But  did  any  one  consider  it  as  what  is 
meant  by  a  license.  While  the  holy  bishops  listened, 
he  was  still  a  layman :  When  one  of  those  who  had 
not  been  present  when  he  was  invited,  asked  him  to 
preach  for  him ,  he  was  still  a  layman . 

To  some  liberal  men  who  were  present,  it  seemed 
on  that  occasion  like  breaking  day.  It  was  a  happy 
omen  :  For  when  the  world  is  evangelized  many  of 
our  present  ecclesiastical  arrangements  will  be  no 
more.  The  plan  of  St.  Luke,  of  Eusebius,  and  of 
Hilary,  will  have  succeeded  :  And  A  Presbyterian' s 

k  2 


ii4 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


seniores  et  novissimi ,  neither  of  them  despised ,  will 
have  liberty  to  teach.  And  probably  will  then  be  seen 
that  ancient  and  necessary  order  of — deaconnesses — 
to  assist  in  female  baptisms,  and  to  give  private  in¬ 
struction  to  young,  and  to  attend  on  sick  women. 
This  order  was  gradually  excluded  at  a  late  period, and 
in  proportion  as  the  clergy  became  profligate.  In  new 
editions  of  Confessions  of  Faith,  one  might  hope  to 
see  them  introduced,  were  it  not  that  these  human 
laws,  like  the  proverbial  folly  of  the  Medes  and  Per¬ 
sians,  glory  in  the  shame  of  altering  not.  The  doc¬ 
trines  and  principles  of  government  must  remain  the 
same  :  Human  explications  are  as  infallible  as  inspi¬ 
ration. 

XXIV.  It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  Origen’s 
preaching  in  Palestine,  or  previously  at  Alexandria, 
was  in  consequence  of  a  right  derived  from  his  being 
head-master  of  a  catechetical  school  at  Alexandria. 
It  was  not  then  so  supposed,  as  appears  from  the 
narrative  :  Origen  had  the  approbation  of  Demetrius, 
as  the  school-master :  But  when  he  wanted  an  usher, 

Origen  electing  Heracias,  made  him  his  assistant,” 
says  Eusebius. 

That  Origen,  when  he  preached  publicly  in  Egypt, 
without  any  censure  whatever,  was  a  layman,  was 
granted  on  all  hands:  That  he  was  a  layman  was  the 
very  ground  of  the  discussion  afterwards  respecting 
his  preaching  in  Palestine,  layman  as  he  was ,  in  the 
presence  of  bishops;  and  that  this  should  not  take 
place,  was  ail  that  Demetrius  then  contended  for. 

Origen  had  been  long  a  lay-preacher  in  the  parish 
of  Demetrius  :  The  pious  bishop  had  encouraged  it. 
This  noble  presbyter,  while  a  layman ,  had  done  im¬ 
mense  good.  His  school  where,  zvhile  a  layman ,  he 
read  divinity -lectures,  and  expounded  the  scriptures, 
was  a  school  of  martyrdom  :  It  furnished  martyrs  and 
confessors  as  wreli  as  bishops  to  the  church. 

In  more  peaceful  times  this  son  of  a  martyr,  his- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


115 


self  a  confessor,  of  the  most  faultless  life,  and  of 
“  immense  genius”  and  M  extensive  erudition,”  was 
not  calculated  to  rise  in  the  church:  He  went  straight 
forward  as  a  lav-preacher,  (and  afterwards  as  a  pres¬ 
byter,)  in  defending  truth,  and  saving  souls,  un¬ 
daunted  by  danger,  and  inflexible  in  sufferings  :  He 
was  the  object  of  envy  and  calumny :  His  good  bishop 
persecuted  him.  Origen  endeavoured  to  mollify  him, 
but  could  not  sacrifice  his  conscience  or  his  rights. 

But  all  this  time  lay-preaching  was  not  the  subject 
of  contest :  It  was,  Origen  preaching  before  bishops , 
ordained  abroad,  and  other  matters.  There  does  not 
appear  in  the  life  of  Origen,  the  slightest  wish,y)*<?m 
any  quarter ,  to  prevent  laymen  from  preaching  out 
of  the  church.  It  was  only  when  Demetrius  was 
on  the  episcopal  u  throne,”  “  publicly  in  the  church,” 
that  he  abhorred  to  see  a  layman  occupying  the 
place  of  u  teacher  to  the  congregation.”  And  in  some 
places  they  at  last  excluded  the  presbyter.  We 
must  always,  however,  distinguish  between  a  prohi¬ 
bition  from  teaching  in  the  church,  and  that  from 
teaching  there,  while  the  bishop  was  present ,  or  in 
the  presence  of  the  bishop ,  and  that  from  teaching  out 
of  the  church. 

A  canon  of  the  4th  council  of  Carthage, towards  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century,  nearly  two  centuries  af¬ 
ter  Origen,  “forbids  a  layman  to  teach  in  the  presence 
“  of  the  clergy ,  except  they  request  him.”  Canons  of 
the  fifth  century  forbid  a  deacon  to  distribute  the  sa¬ 
crament  in  the  presence  of  a  priest;  and  a  priest  to 
perform  the  episcopal  functions  in  the  presence  of  a 
bishop ,  even  if  he  had  lost  his  senses  and  speech. 
A  certain  bishop,  not  rightly  ordained,  they  permit 
to  pronounce  the  blessings  in  the  church ,  which 
priests  had  power  to  do,  “  only  in  private  places .” 
With  regard,  however,  to  the  probable  extent  of 
some  of  these  rules,  we  shall  see  Jerome’s  testimony 
below  :  But  they  show  us  decisively  the  spirit  of  the 


m 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


phrase,  “  in  the  presence .”  When  the  layman  £s 
forbidden  to  teach  in  the  presence  of  the  clergy,  if 
any  motive  would  induce  any  one  to  say,  this  prohi¬ 
bits  the  same  thing  out  of  their  presence — that  the 
phrase  means  exactly  the  reverse  of  what  it  expresses 
—he  is  effectually  prevented  by  what  follows,  ac¬ 
knowledging  the  right ,  and  showing  that  this  canon 
was  designed  (And  it  is  plain  enough  in  itself,  if  it 
were  not  confirmed  by  all  Christian  antiquity  :  It  was 
designed)  not  to  restrain  lay-teaching,  but  to  provide 
for  the  case  of  a  clergyman  being  present :  It  does 
not  meddle  with  it  at  all,  except  in  the-  case  for 
which  it  provides  a  rule.  To  a  small  extent  it  re¬ 
gulates  what  it  shows  to  have  existed  generally.  Nor 
do  we  know  of  any  opposition  to  lay-teaching  till  the 
middle  of  the  following  century. 

The  Palestine  bishops  mention  three  cases  of  lay¬ 
men  invited  to  preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops : 
And  they  say  that  it  was  probable  it  was  done  in 
other  places,  though  they  did  not  know  it. 

Bishop  Potter  makes  a  deduction  from  this,  of 
which  we  cannot  see  any  source  :  That  it  was  not 
then  common  for  laymen  to  preach.  And  Lord 
King  says,  44  though  laymen  then  preached,  it  was — 
44  only  those  that  w^ere  fit  to  profit  the  brethren,”  and 
these  not  unless  44  they  were  desired  by  the  bishop  of 
44  a  parish  to  do  it.” 

This  is  just  like  the  comment  that  finds  44 deacons” 
in  44  helps,”  and  44  mute  elders”  in  44  governments.” 
We  have  read  the  history  again  and  again,  in  Euse¬ 
bius,  to  discover  the  ground  of  these  conclusions : 
There  is  none.  The  narrative  establishes  these  facts  : 

That  as  far  as  Alexander  then  knew ,  laymen  did 
not  frequently  preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops. 

That  the  right  of  laymen  to  preach  elsewhere 
was  unquestioned,  and, 

That  they  were,  at  least  occasionally,  invited  to 
preach  even  in  the  presence  of  bishops,  when  the 


LAY-TEACHING. 


117 


bishop  was  convinced  that  they  were  preachers  fit 
to  profit  the  brethren. 

The  reader  will  please  remark  that  Alexander 
found  this  with  regard  to  Origen  from  common  re¬ 
port.  Origen  was  famous  as  a  lav-teacher,  or  rather 
as  a  preacher.  For  the  distinction  between  teacher 
and  lay-teacher  seems  not  to  have  been  in  use  at  that 
time.  The  distinction  was  between  governors  and 
people.  The  bishop  was  the  chief-ruler  of  the  con¬ 
gregation.  Even  the  deacon  was  an  inferior  ruler. 

He  will  also  remark,  that  the  state  of  the  world 
was  not  then  so  easily  and  correctly  known  to  in¬ 
dividuals  as  now.  And  Alexander  intimates  that  it 
was  probably  different  from  what  he  was  obliged  to 
admit,  because  he  knew  not  the  contrary.  Deme¬ 
trius  was  rash  :  Alexander  was  cautious. 

That  the  reader  may  more  satisfactorily  judge  of 
this  celebrated  passage,  we  will  here  give  him  lord 
King’s  translation  :  u  Whereas  you  write  in  your 
“  letter  that  it  was  never  before  seen  or  done,  that 
“  laymen  should  preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops, 
u  therein  you  wander  from  the  truth.  For  where- 
a  soever  any  are  found ,  that  are  fit  to  profit  the  bre- 
u  thren,  the  holy  bishops,  of  their  own  accord,  ask 
“  them  to  preach  unto  the  people.  So  Evelpis  was 
“  desired  by  Neon,  bishop  of  Laranda,  and  Pauli- 
“  nus  by  Celsus  of  Iconium,  and  Theodorus  by 
u  Atticus  of  Synnada,  our  most  blessed  brethren, 
u  and  it  is  credible,  that  this  is  likewise  done  in 
“  other  places,  though  we  know  it  not.”  . 

If  lay-preaching  had  been  deeemed,  at  that  time, 
an  invasion  of  priestly  functions,  Demetrius  would 
have  said, — Origen  should  have  been  called  of  God, 
as  was  Aaron,  to  execute  the  priestly  office.  He  would 
at  once  have  hurled  the  curse  of  Korah  at  the  lay¬ 
man’s  head. 

XXV.  Bishop  Potter  refers  to  another  occurrence 
m  ecclesiastical  history.  And  let  the  reader  remem- 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


i  18 

ber  the  plain  deduction  from  the  fact,  that  we  have 
only  incidental  occurrences  and  remarks  to  adduce  ; 
If  there  had  been  a  question  about  lay-teaching,  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  church,  we  zvould  have  had 
enough  on  the  subject. 

u  Frumentius  and  Edesius,  two  laymen,  converted 
44  some  of  the  Indians.”  A  church  zvas  raised.  Fru¬ 
mentius  coming  to  Alexandria,  44  was  ordained  bi- 
44  shop,  and  then  returned”  to  perform  the  episcopal 
offices.  It  is  a  most  hopeless  case  to  attempt  to 
prove  from  the  Scriptures,  or  from  the  history  of 
the  first  ages  of  the  church,  that  teaching  wras  con¬ 
sidered  as  an  office  exclusively  clerical.  The  in¬ 
ference  from  this  passage  is  plainly  and  wholly 
different.  Frumentius,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
church,  needed  no  44  ecclesiastical  act”  to  authorize 
him  to  save  as  many  Indians  as  a  conqueror  has  cut 
off  in  a  day.  Yet,  says  bishop  Potter,  44  whence  it  is 
44  manifest  that  a  distinction  was  made,  between  con- 
u  verting  unbelievers,  and  preaching  in  Christian  as- 
44  semblies.”  There  is  such  a  distinction  now .  We 
know  not  exactly  when  it  began  to  be  made  ;  but -we 
hear  nothing  of  it  in  the  case  of  Frumentius.'  His 
church  wanted  rulers.  That  Christians  are  bound, 
according  to  their  knowledge  and  opportunities  and 
the  necessities  of  others,  to  teach,  and  that  a  Chris¬ 
tian  church  ought  to  have  rulers,  are  two  truths 
equally  plain.  Frumentius  taught  without  hesitation 
or  blame.  When  a  church  wras  raised  and  ready  for 
rulers,  he  was  ordained  its  bishop.  His  conduct,  in 
both  respects,  was  agreeable  to  the  opinions  of  his 
day. 

Is  the  distinction  founded  on  the  Scriptures  or 
common  sense  ?  or  does  it  require  more  talent  to 
cherish  the  faith  of  Christians,  than  to  make  them 
such  ?  Do  the  two  works  require  different  commis¬ 
sions  ?  The  question  is  not  with  respect  to  a  case  of 
necessity.  The  conclusion  drawn  is  general — that  a 


LAY-TEACHING. 


119 


mission  to  convert  unbelievers  required  not  the  same 
authority  or  talents  as  to  preach  to  Christians.  And 
we  believe  two  things  are  equally  plain  :  The  fact, 
that  it  does  require  as  much  of  each  :  And  the  mo¬ 
tive  to  the  deduction,  contrary  to  fact — the  notorious 
certainty  that  men  not  only  preached  to  heathens, 
but  were  sent  to  preach  to  them  while  mere  laymen. 

The  apostles  were  miraculously  qualified  to  con¬ 
vert  unbelievers.  Thev  ordained  over  the  churches, 
as  teaching  pastors,  such  common  uninspired  men 
as  these  churches  afforded.  Were  these  superior  in 
talents,  or  in  commission,  to  the  apostles  ?  The  no¬ 
tion  of  inferior  men,  being  the  proper  persons  for 
missions,  while  the  doctors  cannot  so  well  be  spared 
from  Christian  assemblies,  was  not  the  sentiment  or 
practice  of  the  two  first  ages  of  Christianity.  It  is 

framed  for  modern  accommodation.  Let  us  sav  we 

* 

have  not  the  courage  necessary  for  martyrs  ;  but  let 
us  not  pervert  truth. 

We  have  met  with  a  similar  instance  in  Socrates 
Scholasticus.  He  tells  of  certain  Egyptian  monks, 
in  the  fourth  century,  exiled  to  a  heathen  island, 
who  u  induced — all  the  inhabitants  to  embrace  the 
u  Christian  faith — they — changed  their  temple  into — . 
u  a  church ;  received  baptism ,  and  learned  all  the 
u  doctrines  of  Christianity.”  Monks  have  been  cen¬ 
sured  for  many  things  by  the  church:  We  believe 
never  for  this  pious  labour. 

Now  if  any  one  does  not  know  that  monks  were 
then  mere  laymen,  let  him  attend  to  what  the  same 
historian  tells  us,  a  bishop  of  Alexandria  did  at  a 
later  period.  u  There  presided  over  the  monasteries, 
a  in  Egypt,  four  pious  men.  Theophilus — made  one 
“  of  them — bishop  of  Hermopolis. — Two  more  he 
<l  intreated  to  continue  with  him; — and  having  ho - 
“  noured  them  with  the  dignity  of  clergymen ,  he 
“  committed  the  disposal  of  the  revenue  of  the 


120 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


u  church  to  them.”  That  they  were  mere  lay  me  u, 
u  however,  will  not  be  questioned. 

Eusebius  mentions  it  to  the  praise  of  Constantine , 
that  he  u  would  call  a  meeting”  of  u  multitudes  of 
“  people,”  when  he  “  seemed  to  initiate  those  who 
u  were  present  in  the  mysteries  of  the  divine  doc- 
u  trine.”  His  subjects  were  pagan  superstition,  the 
empire  of  God,  divine  judgment  and  Christian  mo¬ 
rals.  w  As  his  usage  was,”  says  Eusebius,  “he  made 
u  speeches  and  instilled  into  his  hearers  divine  pre- 
u  cepts.”  If  any  one  supposes  that  Constantine 
would  have  escaped  priestly  insult,  at  this  period, 
had  he  been,  in  their  opinion,  in  the  habit  of  perform¬ 
ing  their  peculiar  functions,  let  him  just  inquire  into 
the  subject. 

This  great  man  was  wholly  unable  to  repress  the 
disputes  of  the  bishops.  Could  he  have  crushed  the 
evil  in  its  birth,  the  Arian  battle  had  never  been 
fought.  Less  human  blood  would  have  been  suffi¬ 
cient  to  purify  the  earth  from  the  falsehoods  and 
cruelties  which  flowed  from  this  bitter  source.  Each 
bishop  would  have  taught  his  own  sentiments .  The 
head  of  the  church  would  have  taken  care  of  his 
own  cause,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  new  acces¬ 
sions  to  his  kingdom,  in  the  hearts  of  men,  not  in 
their  blood.  The  bitter  persecutions  of  Arians,  by 
orthodox,  and  of  orthodox,  by  Arians,  would  not 
then  have  prevented  the  homage  of  so  many  hearts 
to  Messiah. 

Constantine  could  not  repress  the  bishops.  Like 
a  true  politician,  he  took  the  strongest  side.  Let  it 
not  be  forgotten,  they  are  in  almost  every  case,  the 
lordly  and  aspiring  men  who  are  brought  into  view. 
They  cannot  be  considered  as  a r fair  specimen  of  the 
clergy,  generally. 

Constantine,  though  a  preacher,  was,  perhaps,  not 
well  informed  in  ecclesiastical  history.  He  probably 


LAY-TEACHING. 


121 


did  not  know  that  the  councils,  the  curse  of  the  em¬ 
pire,  the  sources  of  so  much  pride  and  cruelty,  which 
had  tended  so  much  to  demoralize  the  clergy,  and 
had  u  changed  the  whole  face  of  the  church  f  had 
been  appended  to  it  by  principles  wholly  anti-chris- 
tian.  Had  he  driven  the  bishops  back  to  their  pri¬ 
mitive  presbyteries  of  one  congregation,  their  ec¬ 
clesiastical  thunders  had  rolled  sublime,  but  died 
away. 

But  when  met  in  convocation,  he  was  obliged  to 
interfere.  The  influence  acquired  in  other  times,  or 
by  another  kind  of  men  than  many  of  those  who 
thus  met,  was  sufficient  to  disturb  the  world.  The 
excommunication,  by  the  ruler  of  one  congregation, 
of  the  bishop  of  another,  only  troubled  the  church 
by  its  ill  example.  The  clamours  of  an  oecumenical 
council,  demanding  the  interference  of  government, 
was  dangerous  to  the  state. 

XXVI.  However  differently  persons  may  decide 
the  question  how  far  the  lesser  epistles  of  Ignatius, 
from  which  our  quotations  above  are  takei),  have  been 
corrupted, — that  the  martyr  suffered  in  his  writings, 
if  he  ever  wrote  these  epistles,  as  well  as  by  wild 
beasts — that  his  memory  has  been  injured  by  literary 
ruffians  more  cruel  than  his  guards,  there  can  be  no 
possible  doubt.  The  existence  of  the  larger  epistles 
evinces  it.  There  is  no  reasonable  uncertainty  that 
two  opposite  parties  made  very  free  with  his  letters. 
The  design  of  each  was  to  make  the  martyr  speak 
their  sentiments — the  sentiments  of  two  grand  divi¬ 
sions  of  the  Christian  church.  But  each  had  notions 
high  and  exclusive  enough  of  ecclesiastical  rights. 
They  did  not  differ  on  this  subject.  So  that  what¬ 
ever  is  left  by  either  to  the  laity,  we  may  be  sure 
could  not  be  taken  from  them.  As  the  epistles  came 
out  of  the  hands  of  each,  they  would  speak  what 
was  generally  admitted  to  have  been  the  sentiments 
of  the  church  in  the  age  of  the  martyr,  and,  as  far 

L 


1 22 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


as  it  was  judged  prudent,  the  peculiar  sentiments  of 
the  interpolators.  Both  parties  were  evidently  clergy, 
and  both,  however  willing  to  harass  each  other,  con¬ 
spired  in  this — to  elevate  the  clergy  and  depress  the 
laity. 

We  shall  probably  not  err  greatly  if  we  consider 
the  larger  epistles  as  belonging  to  the  fourth  century. 
They  say : 

“  Be  obedient  to  your  bishop,  and — contradict  him 
“  in  nothing ,  for  it  is  a  terrible  thing  to  contradict 
“  such  a  person.”  They  then  warn  all  who  rise  up 
against  their  superiors ,  of  the  punishments  of  Da- 
than  and  Abiram,  Korah,  Absalom,  Uzziah,  and  Saul. 

They  say,  “  If  any  one  folloxus  him  that  separates 
“  from  truth — if  any  one  does  not  eschew  a  lying 
“preacher,  he  shall  be  condemned. —  Separate  from 
“  them — continue  in  one  faith,  one  preaching ,  and 
“  one  eucharist. — One  loaf  is  broken  to  all  the  com- 
“  municants,  and  one  cup  is  distributed  to  them  all. 
“  There  is  but  one  altar  for  the  whole  church ,  and  one 
“  bishop  with  the  presbytery .” 

“  Assemble  together  in  the  same  place  for  your 
“prayers.  Let  there  be  one  common  prayer.” 

“  Return  to  the  unity  of  Christ. — It  is  hard  to 
“  disbelieve  Christ.  It  is  hard  to  reject  the  preaching 
“  of  the  apostles.”  The  one  preaching  above  may 
mean  either  the  public  preaching  where  the  presi¬ 
dents  of  the  church  and  the  one  altar  were;  or,  the 
one  doctrine  from  which  it  was  dangerous  to  depart. 

If  any  reader  be  surprised  to  hear  these  remon¬ 
strances,  from  what  is  said  to  be  the  Arian  side,  let 
him  recollect  that  in  this  long,  violent,  and  bloody 
contest,  at  different  times  and  in  different  places, 
each  party  were  in  power,  and  in  possession  of  the 
churches.  Each  would  address  the  other  as  schis¬ 
matics  in  their  turn,  and  warn  them  of  the  awful  fate 
of  those  who  rose  against  their  ecclesiastical  supe¬ 
riors.  In  the  name  of  the  martyr  they  say  : 


LAY-TEACHING. 


125 


u  If  any  one  preaches  the  one  God — but  denies 
u  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  a  liar.” 

u  I  believe — God  will  show  me  Hero  upon  my 
w throne .” 

“  Keep  that  which  land  Christ  have  committed 
“  to  thee.” 

We  make  these  two  last  quotations,  not  only  for  the 
purpose  we  shall  presently  mention,  but  to  show  the 
period  to  which  these  larger  epistles  could  not  belong. 
It  was  not  in  either  of  the  two  first  ages  they  were 
produced.  There  will  be  another  below  confirming 
this  sentiment. 

w  Every  one  that  preaches  any  thing  besides  what 
is  commanded — if  any  one  denies  the  cross — let 
u  him  be  to  thee  like  the  adversary  himself.”  These 
last  injunctions  are  to  Hero  a  deacon  of  the  church  of 
Ignatius,  and,  as  appears  above,  his  expected  suc¬ 
cessor. 

u  Whosoever  preaches — in  such  a  manner  as  to 
“  take  away  the  divinity  of  Christ,  he  is — the  enemy 
of  all  righteousness.” 

“  Let  governors  be  obedient  to  Cesar — and  the 
governors,  and  Cesar  himself,  to  the  bishop.”  This 
is  not  of  the  three  first  ages  of  Christianity. 

The  reader  is  requested  to  remark,  in  relation  to  a 
subject  some  pages  back,  that  each  of  these  churches 
or  bishoprics  had  one  bishop  and  presbytery — that  is, 
one  college  of  presidents — and  all  assembled  with 
these  rulers  in  the  same  place  where,  on  the  one  altar , 
was  the  one  loaf  and  one  cup  of  the  whole  church  or 
congregation  distributed  to  all  the  communicants. 
Let  the  church  to  whom  the  saint  is  made  to  write 
have  been  large  or  small,  no  matter  if  they  had  every 
day  ten  meetings  under  twenty  different  leading 
rulers  or  brethren,  the  congregation  was  as  really 
one  as  a  congregation  now  in  New  York,  which  has 
six  or  more  societies  on  the  same  evening,  where 
different  elders  and  brethren  attend,  and  at  one  of 


1 24 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


which,  in  rotation,  the  judicious ,  laborious  and  suc¬ 
cessful  pastor  his-self  attends. 

But  the  particular  object  of  these  quotations  is,  in 
connexion  with  those  from  the  smaller  epistles,  to 
show,  that  the  tremendous  threatenings  of  either 
party  of  the  church  respecting  lay  usurpation,  had 
no  reference  whatever  to  teaching .  The  awful  fate 
of  u  laymen”  who  do  aught  without  the  bishop,  and 
of  which  they  are  warned,  is  not  the  reward  of  teach¬ 
ing: — Teaching  is  not  thus  denounced  or  named  in 
these  epistles : — Teaching  is  not  in  their  lists  of  offices 
peculiarly  ecclesiastical: — And  teaching  is  expressly 
admitted  by  them  as  the  right  of  laymen.  If  this 
be  not  proof,  what  is  ? 

“Without  the  bishop  it  is  not  lawful  either  to  bap- 
u  tize,  or  to  offer,  or  to  present  sacrifice,  or  to  cele- 
“  brate  the  love  feast.  But  what  seems  fit  to  him  is 
w  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God — If  he  that  rises  up 
“  against  kings  shall  be  justly  esteemed  worthy  of 
“  punishment — of  hoxv  much  sorer  punishment  sup- 
45  pose  ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who  presumes 
“  to  do  any  without  his  bishop  ?” 

But  with  all  this  azvful  language,  not  one  word  is 
said  of  lay-teaching.  These  epistles  know  nothing 
of  this  fault.  If  teaching  were  then  considered  such 
an  irregularity  as  baptizing  or  offering,  it  was  vastly 
more  to  be  guarded  against.  It  would  have  been 
much  oftener  committed  than  either.  It  was  more 
dangerous,  because  easier  to  perform.  The  tempta¬ 
tions  were  powerful  and  universal  as  regards  time 
and  place.  Every  where,  and  at  all  times,  there  are 
powerful  motives  to  attempt  to  save  souls  from 
death. 

These  different  parties  direct  the  faithful  to  flee 
from  w  divisions  and  false  doctrines.” — u  Of  the  he- 
u  reties ,”  sav  the  larger  and  later  epistles.  They 
warn  them  against 44  the  communion  of  the  accursed — 
u  a  lying  preacher — strange  doctrine.”  But  not  one 


LAY-TEACHING. 


125 


word  is  uttered  about  those  who  were  not  authorized 
to  teach .  Such  a  notion  as  the  necessity  of  authority 
or  license  in  order  to  teach,  is  not  in  these  epistles, 
large  or  small.  It  almost  astonishes  us  that  those 
ingenious  gentlemen  did  not  think  of  this  in  de¬ 
nouncing  their  enemies — that  they  did  not  apply 
44  called  as  Aaron”  to  teaching  as  well  as  other  offices. 
This  were  to  cut  up  the  evil  by  the  roots.  Had  cer¬ 
tain  bishops  and  professors  lived  then,  and  the 
different  parties  known  how  to  distinguish  and  guard 
as  some  of  our  learned  clerks  do,  what  different  lan¬ 
guage  would  they  have  used.  W e  say  almost  asto¬ 
nished.  For  the  solution  is  obvious.  It  was  not 
yet  imagined  that  a  layman  out  of  the  church  where 
the  presidents  were  not,  did  wrong  in  teaching.  And 
in  the  church  he  might  still  teach  if  they  requested 
him.  And  the  parties  denounced  in  these  epistles 
by  either  side  were  not  in  the  church  of  the  other. 
They  had  their  own  assemblies.  This  schism  was  a 
part  of  their  fault.  Teaching  falsehood  was  another.' 
But  not  one  word  is  said  of  teaching  being  wrong 
in  44  laymen”  or  others. 

On  the  contrary,  the  larger  epistles — a  kind  of 
paraphrase  of  the  smaller  ones — express  the  senti¬ 
ment  heretofore  quoted  from  the  smaller  more  fully. 
And  they  show  decisively  how  it  was  understood. 
44  Those  that  profess  themselves  Christians  are  to  be 
u  known  by  their  works.  For  the  tree  is  known  by 
w  its  fruits. — It  is  better  for  a  man  to  hold  his  peace 
44  and  to  be  a  Christian,  than  to  say  he  is  one  and  not 
“  to  be  so. — It  is  a  good  thing  to  teach ,  if  he  that 
44  teaches  does  also  practise. — Let  Christ  speak  in  us 
44  as  he  did  in  Paul.  Let  the  Holy  Spirit  teach  us  to 
44  speak  the  things  of  Christ  as  he  did.” 

44  Be  not  deceived  brethren .  Those  that  corrupt 
44  families  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. — - 
44  How  much  more  shall  those  that — corrupt  the 
44  church  of  Christ  suffer  everlasting  punishment.” 

l  2 


1 26 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


The  reading  of  the  epistles  will  show  any  one  that 
Ignatius  is  not  here  speaking  to  the  clergy. 

Take  the  letter  to  Hero  the  deacon  by  itself :  Sup¬ 
pose  we  had  nothing  to  explain  it :  u  Give  attendance 
44  to  readings  that  thou  mayest  not  only  thyself  know 
41  the  laws,  but  mayest  explain  them  to  others. — 
44  Every  one  that  preaches  any  thing  beside  what  is 
44  commanded — let  him  be  looked  on  by  thee  as  a 
44  wolf. — Do  nothing  without  the  bishops : — For  they 
44  are  priests — they  baptize,  offer  the  sacrifice,  ordain , 
44  and  lay  on  hands:  But  thou  ministerest  to  them.” 
Here  now  is  a  list  for  Hero  of  the  peculiar  functions 
of  the  priesthood,  from  which  the  deacon  is  by  these 
epistles  excluded.  It  would  be  one  thing  to  say. 
The  priest  ordains ;  and  quite  another  to  say.  The 
priest  ordains :  Thou  ministerest.  The  last  would  ex¬ 
clude  the  deacon  from  ordaining.  The  first  would 
not.  Here  the  peculiar  functions  of  the  priesthood 
are  recited,  and  preaching  is  not  among  them.  Nay, 
the  deacon  is  directed  to  explain  the  lazvs  of  Christ . 

And  other  preachers  were  not  acting  44  without  the 
44  bishop”  provided  they  did  not  44  deny  the  cross.” 
These  schismatics,  such  in  the  view  of  this  writer, 
out  of  his  church,  not  authorized  by  its  bishop  or 
clergy,  were  not  condemned  for  preaching,  but  for 
preaching  erroneously.  No  one  will  suppose  that 
these  wolves  were  persons  authorized  by  their  proper 
bishop.  The  bishop  claimed  no  right  to  compel  their 
silence.  But  they  had  not  his  authority.  They  were 
to  him  laymen.  The  very  doctrines  condemned  and 
wholly  in  opposition  to  the  sentiments  of  their  bishop, 
supposing  them  in  the  parish  of  Ignatius,  who  is  now 
supposed  to  speak,  prove  this.  It  is  proved  by  the 
denunciations  against  them.  Could  the  bishop  au¬ 
thorize  devils  to  preach  ? — We  have  no  more  quota¬ 
tions  to  make  from  the  larger  epistles. 

XXVII.  The  apostolic  constitutions  are  evidence 
of  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the  fourth  century. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


a  cy~ 

Whatever  corruptions  this  spurious  writing  may  have 
suffered,  it  was  always  in  hands  disposed  to  increase 
the  wealth,  power,  and  exclusive  privileges  of  the 
clergy.  As  regards  the  rights  of  the  laity,  where  it 
does  not  tend  to  diminish  them,  it  will  appear  to  any 
reader  evidently  an  unexceptionable  witness.  Judge 
from  the  following  quotations  : 

“  Esteem  the  mediators  of  the  wTord  to  be  prophets. 
u  and  reverence  them  as  gods.” 

u  Let  the  bishop  be  honoured  among  you  as  a 
u  god.” 

u  He  is  your  earthly  god.” 

“  As  being  set  over  all  men — kings,  rulers.” 

They  carefully  distinguish  between  those  wrho  are 
to  be  ordained,  and  others  ;  and  accurately  describe 
the  rights  and  duties  of  the  different  orders  of  the 
clergy.  The  bishop,  presbyter,  deacon,  sub-deacon, 
deaconess,  and  reader,  they  direct  to  be  ordained. 
They  say,  w  It  is  not  lawful  for  a  deacon  to  offer  the 
u  sacrifice,  or  to  baptize,  or  to  give — the — blessing.” 
They  speak  in  the  following  manner  of  the  offices  of 
the  presbyter,  not,  hozvever ,  as  belonging  to  him  ex¬ 
clusively :  u  The  presbyter  is  only  to  teach,  to  otter, 
u  to  baptize,  to  bless  the  people.”  In  another  place, 
mentioning  offices  from  which  the  laity  are  excluded , 
they  say  nothing  of  teaching.  u  Neither  do  we  per- 
“  mitthe  laity  to  perform  any  of  the  offices  belonging 
u  to  the  priesthood ;  as,  for  instance,  neither  the  sa- 
u  crifice,  nor  baptism,  nor  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
u  nor  the  blessing.” 

Now,  although  this  plain  distinction  is  made  be¬ 
tween  the  duties  of  the  presbyter,  and  those  duties 
of  his  from  which  laymen  are  excluded,  teaching  be¬ 
ing  among  the  first,  but  not  among  the  last,  and  al¬ 
though  it  is  not  insinuated  in  any  part  of  the  book, 
that  teaching  belongs  exclusively  to  the  priesthood, 
•we  would  not  consider  the  inference  from  this  fact, 
and  from  the  two  last  quotations,  as  so  decisive  wuth 


128 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


regard  to  this  book,  if  alone,  as  when  connected  with 
the  following  :  u  He  that  teaches,  although  he  be  one 
u  of  the  laity,  yet  if  he  be  skilful  in  the  word,  and 
44  grave  in  his  manners,  let  him  teach  :  For  they  shall 
44  be  all  taught  of  God.” 

This  collection  Mr.  Dupin  refers  to  the  third  or 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  the  same 
thing  as  regards  our  argument,  if  a  portion  of  it  be¬ 
longs  to  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth,  or  beginning  of 
the  fifth.  It  imbodies  in  itself  many  valuable  re¬ 
mains  of  antiquity  of  a  much  earlier  date.  Although 
it  may  have  suffered  by  fraudulent  hands,  it  must  have 
been  corrupted  throughout  (if  corrupted  at  all  for 
this  purpose ) — in  order  to  make  it  authorize  lay- 
teaching  as  it  does.  This,  however,  was  morally 
impossible  from  the  hands  it  was  in  :  It  never  will 
be  suspected  by  any  one  who  reads  the  book. 

When  it  hurls  its  thunders  at  the  heads  of  usurping 
laymen,  it  is  not  for  teaching :  When  it  recites  the 
offices  from  which  it  excludes  them,  it  is  not  from 
teaching :  And  it  expressly  declares  their  divine 
right  to  teach.  It  refers  their  fitness  to  God,  and 
their  commission  to  the  apostles. 

The  quotations  from  it  show  decisively  that  teach¬ 
ing  was  still  considered  by  the  priesthood  as  an  of¬ 
fice  belonging  to  all  Christians :  And  they  prove 
(what,  however,  we  have  evidence  enough  of,)  that 
when  in  this  book,  and  others  of  that  and  the  pre¬ 
ceding  ages,  the  interference  with  the  functions  of 
the  priesthood  is  condemned,  there  is  no  reference 
to  teaching. 

Thus  the  apostolical  Clemens,  writing  to  the  Co¬ 
rinthian  Christians  respecting  their  seditious  conduct 
to  some  of  their  rulers,  says  to  them,  44  Let  every 
one  of  you — bless  God  in  his  proper  station.”  Thus 
Ignatius  :  44  Let  there  be  nothing  that  may  be  able 
44  to  make  a  division  among  you. — Neither  do  ye  any 
44  thing  without  your  bishops  and  presbyters.  Nei- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


U9 


44  ther  endeavour  to  let  any  thing  appear  rational  to 
44  yourselves  apart ,  but  being  come  together  into  the 
44  same  place”  &c. 

44  If  any  one  follows  him  that  makes  a  schism  in 
44  the  church,  he  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
44  God.” 

44  There  is  but — one  cup — one  altar — one  bishop, 
44  together  with  his  presbyters.” 

44  //'any  one  shall  preach  the  Jewish  law  unto  you, 
44  hearken  not  unto  him — but  come  all  together  into 
u  the  same  place,  xvith  an  undivided  heart.” 

44  They  abstain  from  the  eucharist ,  and  from  the 
44  public  offices — Let  no  man  do  any  thing  of  w  hat 
1,4  belongs  to  the  church  separately  from  the  bishop — 
44  It  is  not  lawful  w  ithout  the  bishop,  neither  to  bap- 
44  tize,  nor  to  celebrate  the  holy  communion.” 

Now  if  this  language  of  Ignatius  be  not  really  that 
of  the  martyr,  yet  it  show  s  the  uniform  judgment  oi 
the  early  ages. — We  do  not  meet  the  slightest  inti¬ 
mation,  that  giving  religious  instruction  to  the  igno¬ 
rant  is  such  an  irregularity. 

When  the  ancient  writers  exhort  the  faithful  to  as¬ 
semble  with  their  bishop,  or  to  surround  the  one 
altar  of  the  congregation  where  the  offering  wras 
made,  do  they  mean  any  thing  else  than  a  lav-teacher 
of  such  a  parish  now  would  mean,  when  in  any  part 
of  it  he  exhorted  to  the  same  duties  ?  There  are  nqw 
pastors  of  congregations,  who  exert  themselves, 
and  successfully,  to  persuade  their  parishioners  and 
others  in  their  neighbourhood,  to  attend  in  the 
church,  and  to  do  there  what  belongs  to  the  church , 
and  use  as  the  means  the  teaching  of  laymen. 

In  the  Constitutions  those  who  dared  to  perform 
such  priestly  offices  as  offering  the  eucharist,  baptism, 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  greater  and  smaller  bless¬ 
ings,  are  threatened  freely  with  the  punishment  of 
Uzziah  and  Korah.  Nor  is  it  surprising  that  teach- 
:ng  is  not  included  in  such  lists  of  priestly  offices. 


130 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


It  is  not  wonderful  that  such  an  universal  original 
right  and  practice  of  the  apostolic  church,  could  not 
yet  be  set  aside  by  any  influence  whatever. 

We  are  not  surprised  at  the  gradual  appropriation 
of  the  name  and  powers  of  bishop,  by  one  out  of  se¬ 
veral  bishops,  or  at  the  final  exclusion  of  the  people 
from  the  government  of  the  church.  But  we  would 
be  amazed ,  if  after  reading  the  New  Testament,  and 
finding  there,  the  commission  to  instruct  the  igno¬ 
rant  general,  we  were  to  perceive  this  duty  and 
right  forgotten  even  in  the  fourth  age  of  the  cor¬ 
rupted  church. 

XXVIII.  u  The  Constitutions”  give  ample  lists 
of  offices,  and  describe  the  “  ecclesiastical  acts”  pro¬ 
per  with  regard  to  them:  You  read  of  bishop,  pres¬ 
byter,  deacon,  sub-deacon,  deaconess,  reader,  singer, 
and  porter :  And  yet  nothing  is  said  of  licensed 
teachers  :  Such  an  order  as  this,  or  as  catechist,  or 
catechetical  school-master,  is  never  found  in  their 
ample  lists :  They  were  surely  as  important  as  those 
of  porter  or  singer.  The  notion  of  catechists,  as  an 
inferior  order  of  teaching  clergy,  in  the  primitive 
church,  is  wholly  unfounded.  Somehow  or  other, 
the  Christian  public  are  fully  persuaded,  that  such  an 
order  did  exist.  This  error  has  arisen  from  the  ob¬ 
stinate  adherence  to  a  mode  of  speaking  on  the  sub¬ 
ject,  not  calculated  to  give  true  information. 

Bishops,  presbyters,  assistants,  lay-elders,  deacons, 
and  brethren,  now  act  as  trustees.  In  some  churches 
some  of  these  never  perform  the  duties  of  this  office. 
It  would  be  a  similar  abuse  of  language  to  say  that 
trustees  were  a  distinct  order  of  the  clergy  :  We  ad¬ 
mit  that  in  some  churches,  they  performed  the  high¬ 
est  office  of  bishops  ! 

u  The  catechists  did  not  constitute  any  distinct  or- 
“  der  of  the  clergy,  but  were  chosen  out  of  any  other, 
u  The  bishop  himself  sometimes  performed  the  office, 
u  at  other  times  presbyters,  or  even  readers,  or  dea- 


LAY  -TEACHING. 


u  cons,  were  the  catechists.”  This  modern  writer 
might  have  said  at  once,  Clergy  and  laity  catechised. 
A  catechist  was  a  clergyman  or  layman  catechising , 
(as  is  customary  now,)  or  a  man  accustomed  to  ca¬ 
techise.  Of  mere  laymen  catechising  we  have  the 
plainest  proofs  in  Origen,  and  others  before  and  after 
him,  at  Alexandria.  The  church  made  plenty  of 
orders  in  the  fourth  century  :  But  they  did  not  say, 
A  man  cannot  teach  the  ignorant  without  belonging  to 
an  order . 

Says  the  learned  Bingham,  (a  staunch  advocate  of 
episcopacy,  and  enemy  of  lay-teaching,  referring  to 
the  ancient  church,)  w  That  laymen  made  sermons  to 
fck  the  people,  in  a  private  way,  as  catechists,  in  the 
u  catechetical  schools,  there  is  no  question .11 

In  the  passage  of  the  Constitutions,  whence  the 
quotation,  “  He  that  teacheth,  though  he  be  one  of 
u  the  laity,”  &c.  is  taken,  catechising  and  catechetic 
instruction,  are  so  mentioned  as  to  lead  one  to  think 
that  teaching  in  these  schools  was  particularly  in  the 
view  of  the  writer,  and  induced  the  general  remark. 
If  so,  if  there  was  a  particular  reference  to  cateche¬ 
tical  schools,  then  the  whole  passage  from  which  this 
quotation  is  taken,  is  one  proof  of  what  has  just  been 
asserted,  that  both  clergy  and  laity  were  accustomed 
to  instruct  there, — and  that  laymen  there  instructed 
u  the  faithful ,  whether  man  or  woman ;”  that 
these  schools  were  generally  congregations ;  in  a 
word,  that  laymen  there  made  sermons  to  the  people. 

The  lay  instruction  would  of  course,  at  a  certain 
period,  hardly  ever  (as  wre  have  seen,  as  early  as 
Origen’s  time — the  beginning  of  the  third  century,) 
be  in  the  church,  at  least  when  the  superior  clergy 
were  present.  The  fact  of  a  college  of  pastors  and 
deacons  in  each  small  congregation  would,  no  doubt, 
when  men  began  to  be  trained  for  the  service  of  the 
church,  confine  public  teaching  in  the  churchy  espe- 


132 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


ciallv  in  peaceful  times,  to  the  presidents  of  the  con¬ 
gregation  :  “  Let  the  presbyters,”  say  the  Constitu¬ 
tions,  u  one  by  one— exhort  the  people — and  the 
“  bishop  last.” 

XXIX.  We  have  already  referred  to  the  following 
fact.  Says  Socrates  S.  “At  Alexandria,  a  presbyter 
u  does  in  no  wise  preach  :  And  this  usage  had  its  be - 
u  ginning  from  such  time  as  Arius  raised  a  disturb- 
a  ance  in  that  church.”  But  a  usage  of  one  church, 
not  very  ivell  understood ,  does  not  characterize  the 
universal  practice. 

We  know  too,  that  in  Rome,  when  lay-teachers 
were  excluded  from  the  church,  and  the  deacon  si¬ 
lenced,  and  the  presbyter  forbidden  to  preach  there, 
and  perhaps  men,  theirselves  incapable  of  preaching, 
were  allured  by  the  honours  of  the  Roman  chair, 
there  was  no  preaching  at  all  in  the  church.  We  are 
very  little  disposed  to  reason  from  the  practice  of 
the  church,  after  the  three  first  centuries. 

How  soon  after  Ori gen’s  time  the  deacon  was  si¬ 
lenced,  we  know  not.  That  he  then  preached,  and 
in  the  church,  and,  of  course,  more  frequently  there 
than  other  men,  not  presbyters,  is  certain.  Hilary 
says,  that  though  deacons  preached  originally,  they 
did  not  preach  in  his  time.  And  this  refers  at  least  to 
preaching  in  the  church. 

Does  not  the  gradual  exclusion  of  the  layman 
from  preaching  in  the  church,  afterwards  of  the  dea¬ 
con,  and  lastly  of  the  presbyter  in  some  places, 
plainly  evince  one  general  operating  principle  ?  Is  it 
not  remarkable,  that  the  deacon  was  so  easily  si¬ 
lenced  ?  Did  it  not  arise  from  this,  that  he  was  not 
a  pastor  ?  He  did  not  preach  publicly  in  the  church 
at  frst ,  without  the  permission  of  the  bishops.  But 
this  was  the  presbyters  original  right:  For  at  first 
he  was  a  bishop. 

Lest  it  should  escape  some  worthy  reader,  little  ac¬ 
customed  to  these  inquiries,  we  remind  him,  That. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


133 


Origen’s  history  proves  to  him  that  the  layman  was 
seldom  invited  to  preach  in  the  church,  at  least  in 
many  places,  in  his  day.  But  a  quotation  from  Ori- 
gen,  above,  shows  him  that  every  deacon  was  still  a 
preacher  in  the  church.  Hilary,  about  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century,  shows  him  that  he  was  not  (at 
least  not  generally?)  in  his  time.  And  Jerome,  who 
died  an  old  man  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
tells  him,  that  the  M  ill  custom  to  forbid  presbyters  to 
w  preach  in  the  presence  of  bishops,”  then  existed  “  in 
“  some  churches.” 

The  contradictory  assertions  on  this  subject, 
(while  there  is  no  real  difference  of  opinion)  arising 
from  the  different  portions  of  time  to  which  each 
writer  refers,  induce  us  to  express  the  wish  that  the 
dates  of  quotations  were  given  oftener  than  they  are. 
It  is  absurd  to  quote  from  an  obscure  author  with¬ 
out  this.  And  very  learned  men  have  had  such  a 
regard  for  ignorant  laymen,  who  used  their  own 
eyes,  as  to  give  the  dates  of  well  known  names. 

It  is  of  essential  importance.  The  practice  of  the 
first  century  proves  much  more  respecting  the 
practice  of  the  apostolic  church,  than  that  of  the  se¬ 
cond.  The  usage  of  these  has  vastly  more  weight 
than  that  of  the  third. 

The  word  antiquity  is  ambiguous.  The  antiquity 
of  Lord  King — the  three  first  centuries — and  the  an¬ 
tiquity  of  Mr.  Bingham — including  some  centuries 
lower — are  very  different  things.  And  the  first  was 
well  aware  that  some  would  even  be  willing  to  divide 
his  period :  He  hints  the  reasonableness  of  it :  He 
therefore  gives  the  age  of  each  quotation.  In  Lord 
King’s  antiquity  the  deacon  preached.  In  Mr. 
Bingham’s  it  may  be  said  he  did  not.  And  Mr. 
Bingham  characterizes  the  usage  of  the  church 
chiefly  by  the  latter  part  of  his  antiquity. 

Almost  every  one  knows  the  change  introduced 

M 


134 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


when  Christianity  became  the  established  religion. 
It  was  a  glorious  epoch  to  the  church.  But  it  was 
abused.  We  refer  to  Mr.  Dupin  for  a  most  empha¬ 
tic  and  very  brief  description  of  the  prodigious  im¬ 
provement  then  made  in  the  external  arrangements 
of  the  church.  We  cannot  say  whether  the  candid 
catholic  designed  to  ridicule  or  approve.  But  cer¬ 
tainly  the  practice  of  the  church  after  that  period  is 
small  proof  of  what  existed  originally.  And  per¬ 
haps  if  we  divide  the  first  three  hundred  years  into 
two  equal  parts,  and  lay  aside  the  suspected  lordly 
language  of  Ignatius  as  uncertain  whether  his  (as 
some  men  of  great  learning  and  piety  do),  we  have  in 
the  first  century  and  first  half  of  the  second,  the  only 
period  of  the  church  that  we  can  suspect  of  a  careful 
general  conformity  to  inspired  rules.  They  had  not 
made  many  precious  modern  ecclesiastical  discove¬ 
ries.  Still,  with  all  the  sin  and  follv  of  subsequent 
times,  we  are  certain  of  the  existence  of  much  ge¬ 
neral  piety,  not  only  in  the  remainder  of  the  three 
first,  but  down  through  following  centuries.  Many 
of  the  lordly  prelates  which  history  brings  to  our  no¬ 
tice,  did  not  know  their  error .  Many  thought  they 
were  doing  God  service.  We  should  know  better. 

We  admire  the  men  whom  A  Presbyterian  and 
we  censure.  The  very  name  of  Cyprian,  that  noble 
martyr,  produces  a  glow  of  feeling  in  our  heart,  and 
ever  will.  Leo,  that  complete  pope,  did  not  perceive 
that  he  was  hiding  his  noble  qualities  from  posterity 
by  wrapping  himself  in  the  very  rags  of  the  wretch 
of  Babylon. 

The  torrent  of  vice  which  was  inundating  the 
church  is  not  more  remarkable  in  these  ages  than 
the  continual  struggles  of  clerical  pietv  to  reform  the 
clergy  and  other  members  of  the  church,  and  to 
throw  off  the  vampyres  \rho  aimed  at  its  very  exist¬ 
ence.  Unhappily  they  were  unwilling  to  learn  from 
the  New  Testament  the  principles  of  government; 


LAY-TEACHING. 


135 


I  hev  made  discoveries  that  always  suited  the  pre¬ 
sent  circumstances.  But  would  councils  now  have 
the  Christian  courage  to  make  such  canons  against 
usury  as  they  did? 

XXX.  With  regard  to  an  earlier  period  of  the 
church,  it  must  be  obvious  that  almost  every  pious 
teacher  who  was  willing  to  devote  himself  to  the 
work  of  the  gospel,  would  be  willing  to  do  it  as  one 
of  a  college  of  presbyters.  A  member  of  such  a 
body  would  often  have  little  official  duty,  but  of 
those  various  kinds,  attractive  to  such  a  man,  espe¬ 
cially  when  the  bishop  and  aspiring  co-presbvters 
would  be  willing  to  relieve  him  of  most  other  cleri¬ 
cal  burdens. 

Teaching  talents  in  the  church,  therefore,  whether 
possessed  by  a  good  or  bad  man,  would  naturally 
tend  to  the  clerical  order.  Little  opposition  would, 
at  that  time,  exist  in  the  minds  of  the  best  to  the 
gradations  of  the  hierarchy,  disgusting  as  they  now 
appear  to  a  sensible  and  unprejudiced  mind,  or  ra¬ 
ther  to  a  mind  pre-occupied  with  the  true  glory  of 
religion.  Experience  had  not  convinced  them  of 
the  truth.  It  has  not  yet  convinced,  the  Christian 
world. 

No  wonder  the  pious  presbyters  of  these  early 
ages,  without  our  experience,  were  fully  persuaded, 
that  w  a  conformity  in  doctrines  and  practice”  to  the 
apostolic  church  was  u  sufficient.”  And  if  the  love 
of  system  and  ease  can  reconcile  men  to  such  ab¬ 
surd  sentiments  now,  is  it  remarkable  that  the  same 
cause  had  the  same  effect  then  ?  It  was  scarcely  at 
all,  that  a  feeble  and  undecided  voice  was  heard 
against  the  departures  of  the  church  from  its  original 
principles  of  government,  given  by  inspiration . 

When,  therefore,  w-e  can  hardly  conceive  of  a  sin¬ 
gle  cause  to  prevent  a  pious  teacher  from  entering 
into  the  clerical  order,  and  when  pious  clergymen. 


136 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


not  in  all  cases,  but  generally,  must  have  endeavour¬ 
ed  to  press  piety  and  talents  into  the  service  of  the 
church,  is  it  wonderful,  that  we  seldom  hear  of  lay- 
teachers  officiating  publicly  in  the  congregation  ? 
If  the  sentiments  just  expressed  be  correct,  capable 
teachers,  men  willing  to  teach,  and  very  well  quali¬ 
fied,  and  not  clergymen,  must  have  been  very  rare. 
And  if  the  aid  of  such  as  did  sometimes  exist,  were 
wanted  in  the  church,  the  fact  would  not  always  be 
acknowledged  by  the  presidents  of  the  church. 

No  difficulty  then  existed  on  the  ground  of  educa¬ 
tion.  Some  readers  perhaps  may  not  be  aware  that 
the  bars  in  the  way  of  pious  but  unlearned  men  are 
entirely  modern.  As  late  as  the  fourth  century, 
44  there  was  no  law  enacted  which  excluded  the  igno- 
44  rant  and  illiterate  from  ecclesiastical  preferments 
44  and  offices.  And  it  is  certain  that  the  greatest  part, 
ct  both  of  the  bishops  and  presbyters,  were  men  en- 
44  tirely  destitute  of  all  learning  and  education.” 

It  belonged  to  the  pastors,  it  was  theirs  of  divine 
right,  to  determine  who  should  preach  in  the  congre¬ 
gation,  of  which  they  were  rulers.  In  the  case  of 
some  eminent  laymen,  we  see  they  did  invite  them 
to  preach  in  the  church .  But  would  not  common 
sense,  as  well  as  the  rulers  of  the  church,  generally 
say  to  a  lay-teacher,  as  soon  as  the  period  arrived 
when  the  fact  was  so.  Here  are  a  useless  number  of 
presbyters :  They  need  not  your  help :  Go  to  the 
school-assemblies :  Go  to  the  destitute  places :  Go 
where  you  are  needed  :  Go  where  you  can  get  hear¬ 
ers,  and  have  an  opportunity  of  making  Christians  ? 
And  they  would  go:  And  they  would  invite  the 
people  to  hear  them:  And  they  would  save  souls: 
And  they  would  enjoy  the  blessedness  of  it  here 
and  hereafter.  And  churches  would  be  increased; 
and  others  would  be  raised.  And  a  long  succession 
of  bishops,  for  many  a  century,  would  follow  the 


LAY-TEACHING. 


137 

poor  despised  layman.  And  the  old  broken  chair 
without  a  back,  or  stool,  or  bench,  or  block,  on  which 
he  sat,  when  he  prepared  men  unto  glory,  would  in 
after  ages  be  called  an  episcopal  throne. 

XXXI.  It  was  now  the  fifth  century.  Ages  had 
passed  since  the  ascension  of  the  Son  of  God.  The 
gospel,  by  means  of  ordained  and  lay-teachers,  who 
had  gone  every  where  preaching  the  word ,  had  spread 
over  the  earth.  It  had  triumphed.  The  predictions 
of  prophets,  and  of  Christ,  had  been  verified.  But 
the  enemies  of  pure  religion  had  in  some  degree 
succeeded,  and  were  to  succeed  still  further.  The 
church  was  still  increasing :  But  its  vices  were  mul¬ 
tiplying.  The  throne  of  Jesus  was  usurped,  and  his 
prerogatives  were  assumed,  by  mere  mortal  man. 

The  fourth  age  had  closed  in  awful  agitations. 
I  hey  continued  throughout  the  following.  Hordes 
of  barbarians,  from  different  quarters,  during  this 
period  inundated  the  empire.  Ignorance  and  dark¬ 
ness  followed  in  their  train.  Not  merely  did  these 
horrid  swarms  theirselves,despisingarts  and  sciences, 
exclude  the  lights  of  heaven  :  Alarms,  wars,  and  de¬ 
vastations,  left  little  room  for  attention  to  knowledge 
among  the  miserable  people  whom  they  oppressed. 

What  science  remained  was  chiefly  confined  to  the 
clergy  and  the  monks.  Debased  by  error  as  most 
of  these  were,  in  their  hands  it  could  not  but  dege¬ 
nerate.  The  empire  was  immersed  in  superstition 
and  darkness.  The  people,  sunk  in  vice,  were  wretch¬ 
ed  judges  of  the  life  that  became  the  clergy,  or  the 
rights  that  properly  belonged  to  them.  They  easily 
surrendered  their  own.  This  was  the  very  period  in 
which  we  would  desire  to  learn  that  lay-teaching  was 
denounced . 

It  was  the  age  of  seditions,  poisons,  assassinations, 
and  murders  of  all  kinds — of  priestly  arrogance,  ig¬ 
norance,  and  negligence — of  general  luxury  and  ef- 

m  2 


138 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


feminacy — of  darkness,  crime,  and  curse.  Religion 
was  made  to  consist  in  solitude  and  unnatural  auste¬ 
rity.  Swarms  of  monks  filled  the  church.  The 
horrible  doctrines  of  persecution  and  pious  fraud 
were  openly  defended.  Mysticism,  fanaticism,  so¬ 
phisms,  and  subtleties,  excluded  ancient  simplicity 
and  holiness.  Religion  was  smothered  under  a  load 
of  ceremonies.  Charged  with  the  most  horrid  su¬ 
perstitions,  it  became  the  mere  creature  of  the  state. 
Thus  changed,  it  was  no  longer  itself.  It  almost 
ceased  to  be  the  friend  of  learning,  truth,  or  virtue. 
It  was  nearly  assimilated -in  external  pomp  and  folly 
to  heathenism. 

Compositions  of  practical  piety  were  nearly  un¬ 
known.  A  good  man,  lifting  his  voice  in  favour  of 
rational  piety,  in  opposition  to  celibacy  and  hypocri¬ 
tical  or  sincere  austerity,  risked  the  vengeance  of 
pious  and  impious,  pope  and  council,  court  and  em¬ 
peror. 

The  work  of  making  creeds,  however,  never  ceas¬ 
ed.  This  period  excelled  in  the  knowledge  of  dis¬ 
tinction  and  guard .  Many  doctrines  -were  determined 
rvith  precision  and  accuracy .  Contests  about  creeds 
were  the  fruitful  source  of  innumerable  crimes.  The 
clergy  insinuated  themselves  into  the  courts  of  differ¬ 
ent  emperors  of  different  faiths.  Others,  ordained 
to  no  places,  or  refusing  to  be  confined  to  them,  had 
no  employment.  The  fearful  sights  that  preceded 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  were  not  more  ominous 
to  the  beholders  than  these  corruptions  are  to  the  en¬ 
lightened  mind. 

The  lay-teacher  had  been  in  most  places  excluded 
from  the  church.  It  is  probable  he  was  seldom  in¬ 
vited  by  the  bishops,  unless  it  might  be  in  remote 
places,  such  as  that  in  Cyrene,  of  which  a  writer  of 
this  age  says  :  The  clergy  were  of  the  purest  morals, 
but  the  churches  of  the  plainest  materials, — rods  in- 


LAY-TEACHING. 


139 


ter  woven. — He  offered  the  presbyter,  with  whom  he 
went  into  one  of  them,  ten  pieces  of  gold.  He  re¬ 
fused  it,  saying,  The  church  was  not  built  with  gold, 
but  rather  unbuilt  bv  it. 

j 

The  deacon  now  did  not  preach  in  the  church.  In 
many  places  the  presbyter  did  not.  Two  centuries 
after  this,  we  read  in  a  canon ,  w  Presbyters  are  not 
“  permitted — to  preach — in  the  presence  of  a  bishop .” 
But  even  now,  in  many  places ,  they  were  not.  In 
Rome,  it  is  said,  the  bishop  neither  preached  nor 
allowed  others  to  do  so  in  his  stead.  Still  (there 
may  have  been,  but)  we  have  seen  no  instance  (and 
if  there  be,  we  request  the  information,)  of  laymen 
being  forbidden  by  the  authority  of  the  church  to 
preach  out  of  the  presence  of  the  clergy. 

Leo  arose.  “He  rendered  himself  more  famous — 
“  than  any  of  the  popes — since  St.  Peter. — He  ex- 
u  tended  his  pastoral  vigilance  over  all  the  churches 
“  of  the  east  and  west, — opposed  heresies, — and — 
u  kept  up  the  grandeur  and  authority  of  his  see. — 
“  There  was  no  affair  almost  transacted  in  the  church, 
“  — in  which  he  had  not  a  great  share”  He  did  not 
conform  himself,  it  appears,  to  the  usage  of  his  church. 
An  eloquent  man,  though  so  much  employed  other¬ 
wise,  he  preached.  But  it  is  said  he  used  sermons 
made  by  a  layman.  It  might  have  been  only  skeletons, 
which  he  clothed  on  the  steps  of  the  altar.  Among 
other  regulations,  he  forbids  farmers  or  other  persons 
dependent  in  any  manner  on  masters,  to  be  received 
into  the  number  of  the  clergy.  Beside  the  injury 
done  their  masters,  he  assigns  this  reason,  That  the 
ministry  was,  as  it  were,  made  contemptible  by  such 
sort  of  persons.  We  have  heard  in  conversation,  of 
valuable  bishops  of  our  own  day,  (of  a  spirit  inde¬ 
pendent  and  noble,  who  would  not  in  their  preaching 
be  dictated  to  by  their  owners,)  yet  slaves. 

The  lay-teacher  will  be  pleased  to  learn,  that  his 


140 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


case  was  not  overlooked  by  this  worthy  gentleman. 
Says  Mr.  Dupin,  “  He  advertiseth  Maximus  to  pro- 
“  hibit  the  monks  and  laymen  from  preaching,  and 
44  so  much  the  more,  because  it  belongs  to  the 
44  bishops  only.”  We  are  done.  After  the  voice 
of  Rome  so  plainly  expressed,  we  prepare  to 
close. 

It  is  worthy  of  inquiry,  whether  the  reason  of  this 
papal  bull  was  not  that  the  clergy  were  now  be¬ 
ginning  to  find  formidable  enemies  in  the  monks  ? 
For  their  vices,  monks  were  then  (according  to  St. 
Nilus,  in  Mr.  Dupin,)  a  disgrace  to  their  profession. 
“  They  were  now  gradually  distinguished  from  the 
u  populace,”  says  Dr.  Mosheim,  u  and  were  endowed 
“  with  such  opulence  and  such  honourable  privileges, 
“  that  they  found  themselves  in  a  condition  to  claim 
“  an  eminent  station,”  &c. 

XXXII.  The  sentiments  of  Dr.  Campbell,  a  stan¬ 
dard  writer  in  the  presbyterian  church,  corre¬ 
spond  remarkably  with  those  of  Hilary.  Says  he, 
41  Philip,  though — no  more  than — a  trustee  for  the 
“  poor,  in  matters  purely  secular,  did  all  to  the  Ethio- 
“  pian  eunuch,  which  the  apostles  had  in  charge  with 
“  regard  to  all  nations.”  He  then  expresses  his 
opinion  in  favour  of  the  propriety  of  “limiting — the 
44  power  of  baptizing  to  fewer  hands  than  that  of 
“preaching,”  and  that  “the  gradual  settlement  of  a 
“  regular  ministry  throughout  the  church,  would 
“  gradually”  have  this  effect,  and  that  44  wherever 
44  there  happened  to  be  a  return  of  the  like  exigen- 
44  cies,  through  the  want  of  licensed  pastors,  every 
44  private  Christian  would — be — bound,  if  capable,  to 
“supply  the  defect.”  He  then  quotes  Tertullian  to 
show,  44  what  appears  to  have  been  the  approved prac- 
“  tice  of  laymen  even  then ,  who,  when  none  of  the 
44  clerical  order  could  be  had,  celebrated  the  eucha- 
44  rist,”  &c. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


141 


A  few  quotations  from  Mr.  Robinson  relative  to 
an  early  period  of  the  reformation  follows  : 

u  The  inquisitors  of  the  times  said, — if  they  had 
u  not  come  in  to  the  aid  of  the  church”  (in  Spain,) 
“  at  this  critical  moment,  in  spite  of  all  the  power  of 
u  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  all  the  policy  of  his  son, 
“  Philip  II.,  all  the  learning  of  the  universities,  all 
u  the  influence  of  the  hierarchy,  and  all  the  trea- 

sures  of  Mexico  and  Peru,  dyers  and  cobblers , 
“  would  have  preached  the  catholic  religion — out  of 
“  Spain.” 

Said  a  Dominican  persecutor,  speaking  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Albigenses,  “  Cursed  be  the  man  who 
“  first  thought  of  putting  the  ministration  of  these 
u  things  into  the  hands  of  vile  peasants;  who  came 
u  from  the  foddering  of  cattle  to  these  holy  ordi- 
u  lances.” 

This  gentleman,  who  would  not  allow  the  con¬ 
scientious  peasantry  to  retire  honourably — What 
man  did  he  curse  ?  Was  it  a  man  taken  from  among 
men  ?  We  fear  there  has  been  many  a  curse,  and 
many  a  sarcasm  expressed,  that  the  unthinking  per¬ 
son  was  not  aware  was  cast  at  that  very  Head,  which 
now  wears  the  diadem  of  the  universe.  Tinkers  and 
cobblers  !  Fishermen  !  The  carpenter’s  son  ! — The 
successor  of  Mark,  the  evangelist,  was  an  Alexan¬ 
drian  cobbler,  and  no  doubt  worked  at  his  trade,  af¬ 
ter  he  was  primate  of  all  Africa. 

The  history  of  the  first  age  evinces  the  power  of 
God:  But  it  stains  the  pride  of  human  glory.  When 
the  gospel  had  embraced  the  civilized  world,  things 
that  were  despised  were  still  used  in  the  church. 
We  glory  in  their  poverty,  and  want  of  human 
means. 

Says  Mr.  R.,  Huss  and  Jerome,  of  Prague,  taught 
thus  :  “  Deacons  or  elders  by  the  instinct  of  God,  by 
44  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  without  any  license  from 


A  DEFENCE  OF 


142 

“  pope  or  bishop,  may  preach,  and  convert  spiritual 
“  children.” 

Jerome  “took  unwearied  pains  to  convince  the 
“  common  people ,  that  they  might,  without  any  au¬ 
thority  from  the  pope  or  clergy ,  read,  judge,  and 
“  explain,  the  holy  Scriptures  ,*  that  any  one  who 
“  could  might  preach ,  baptize,  and  administer  the 
u  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  these  exercises  were  as  ef- 
u  fectual,  to  answer  all  the  ends  for  which  they  were 
“  instituted,  in  the  hands  of  the  laity  as  in  those 
“of  the  clergy. — He  exemplified  his  doctrines  by 
“  preaching  (all  layman  as  he  was,)  all  over  Bohe- 
“  mia  and  Moravia,  in  castles,  houses,  streets,  and 
“  fields.” 

XXXIII.  There  is  reason  to  hope  that  the  dispo¬ 
sition  of  Christians  to  enlighten  their  fellow  men,  in 
“  wide  streets,”  as  well  as  in  “  alleys,”  is  in¬ 
creasing,  and  that  the  attempt  to  stop  it  is  a  vain 
effort. 

Yet  as  there  is  too  much  vanity,  mixed  with 
pure  principle,  exciting,  and  too  much  unbelief  and 
love  of  the  world  restraining,  in  the  hearts  of  laymen 
as  well  as  of  clergymen,  so  there  is  too  much  dan¬ 
ger,  that  the  present  lay-exertions  may  cease  of 
themselves.  We  hope  they  will  not.  At  any  rate 
the  efforts  of  any  other  enemy  than  a  corrupt  heart 
are  in  vain. 

Their  silence  is  prevented  by  the  noble  sentiment 
of  the  apostles,  in  the  midst  of  all  that  weakness  and 
sinfulness  of  heart  common  even  to  the  good,  “  Obey 
“  God  rather  than  man.” 

Persuade  lav-teachers  that  damnation  is  nothing, 
and  all  in  a  moment  is  peace.  Show  them  that  man¬ 
kind  are  not  perishing  in  sin,  or  that  the  gospel  is  not 
the  power  of  God  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and 
it  will  save  them  a  vast  deal  of  trouble. 


LAY-TEACHING. 


145 


u  I  will  make  you  leave  preaching,  for  you  are  a 
w  heretic,”  said  Chrysostom  to  the  pious  Novatian 
bishop  of  Constantinople.  u  I  will  give  you  a  re* 
u  ward,”  replied  the  latter,  u  if  you  will  free  me  from 
“  so  great  pains.” 


THE  END. 


/ 


■ 

-  - 


-  < 


* 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


'  r' 


h  !'  t  *  \ 


'  f  .  .. 


; 


:*$**>< 


. 


